Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This is the Second of Three Volumes of the Environmental Impact Statement on the NSW Abalone Fishery
VOLUME 2
Consideration of Alternative Management Regimes
The Draft Fishery Management Strategy
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Implementing the Draft FMS
Justification of Preferred Management Options in the Draft FMS
September 2005
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by:
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd
On behalf of:
NSW Department of Primary Industries and
Shareholders of the NSW Commercial Abalone Fishery
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 2 CHAPTER C Consideration of Alternative Management Regimes.........................................160 C1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................161 C2.0 Abalone Fisheries Outside New South Wales....................................................................163 C3.0 Broad-Scale Alternatives .......................................................................................................167
C3.1 The No Fishery Alternative ..............................................................................................167 C3.1.1 Economics and Employment .....................................................................................167 C3.1.2 Management and Research........................................................................................168 C3.1.3 Recreational, Indigenous and Illegal Harvest .........................................................168
C3.2 No Change to Existing Management Arrangements ....................................................169 C3.3 Structure of the Draft FMS................................................................................................170
C4.0 Potential Alternatives to the Operation of the Fishery .....................................................172 C4.1 Alternative Methods for Collecting and Delivering Abalone......................................172 C4.2 Key Alternative Management Approaches ....................................................................174
C4.2.1 Sustainability of the Catch of Abalone ....................................................................174 C4.2.2 Fisheries Management Services ................................................................................179 C4.2.3 Alternatives for Promoting Economic Viability......................................................180 C4.2.4 Alternatives for Controlling Illegal Fishing.............................................................186 C4.2.5 Alternative Stakeholder Involvement and Community Consultation ................187
C4.3 Alternative Performance Indicators and Monitoring Programs .................................188 C4.3.1 Performance Indicators for Collection and Delivery of Abalone .........................188 C4.3.2 Performance Indicators for Management ................................................................189
C4.3.2.1 Indicators for Sustainability of Stock..................................................................189 C4.3.2.2 Indicators for Provision of Management Services, Including Research & Monitoring ............................................................................................................................190
C4.3.3 Performance Indicators of the Economic Viability of the Fishery........................191 C4.3.4 Performance Indicators for Compliance within the Abalone Fishery .................192 C4.3.5 Performance Indicators of Stakeholder Involvement and Community Consultation..............................................................................................................................193
C4.4 Alternative Arrangements for Cost Recovery or Funding Sources ............................193 C4.4.1 Alternative Arrangements for Cost Recovery..........................................................193 C4.4.2 Sources for Research Programs .................................................................................194
C5.0 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................196 CHAPTER D The Draft Fishery Management Strategy for the Abalone Fishery..................197
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page ii
D1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................198 D1.1 Background.........................................................................................................................198 D1.2 Relevant Legislation and Policy.......................................................................................201
D1.2.1 The Fisheries Management Act.................................................................................201 D1.2.2 Ecologically Sustainable Development....................................................................202 D1.2.3 Share Management Plans...........................................................................................202 D1.2.4 The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act .....................................203 D1.2.5 The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act....................................................................................................................................................203 D1.2.6 The NSW Marine Parks Act.......................................................................................204 D1.2.7 Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan .....................................205 D1.2.8 Consideration of Alternative Governance Arrangements ....................................206
D2.0 Description of the Designated Fishing Activity ................................................................207 D2.1 Collection of Abalone and Characteristics of the Stock................................................207 D2.2 Operation of the Fishery ...................................................................................................210
D2.2.1 Operational Areas, Protected and Closed Areas ....................................................210 D2.2.2 Controls Under the Abalone Share Management Plan .........................................212 D2.2.3 Enforcement and Compliance...................................................................................212 D2.2.4 Fees, Charges, Cost Recovery and Community Contribution Payments ...........213 D2.2.5 Fishing Closures..........................................................................................................215 D2.2.6 Bycatch and Threatened Species...............................................................................215 D2.2.7 Provision for Consultation & Participation by Stakeholders in Management...216
D2.2.7.1 Management Advisory Committee ...................................................................216 D2.2.7.2 Ministerial Advisory Councils ...........................................................................217 D2.2.7.3 Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review Committee .................................218
D2.3 Factors Affecting the Operation of the Fishery..............................................................218 D3.0 Goals, Objectives and Management Responses.................................................................220
D3.1 Management Framework..................................................................................................220 D3.2 Vision for the Commercial Abalone Fishery..................................................................223 D3.3 Goals, Objectives and Management Responses.............................................................224
D4.0 Performance Reporting and Monitoring ............................................................................243 D4.1 Performance Monitoring...................................................................................................243
D4.1.1 Performance Indicators ..............................................................................................243 D4.1.2 Data Requirements and Availability.......................................................................243 D4.1.3 Robustness ...................................................................................................................243
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page iii
D4.1.4 Trigger Points ..............................................................................................................244 D4.2 Predetermined Review of Performance Indicators and Trigger Points .....................244 D4.3 Reporting on the Performance of the Fisheries Management Strategy......................255
D4.3.1 Performance Report ....................................................................................................255 D4.3.2 Review Report in Response to Trigger Points ........................................................255
D4.4 Contingency Plans for Unpredictable Events ................................................................257 D5.0 Research and Development Plan .........................................................................................258
D5.1 Previous Reviews and Priorities ......................................................................................258 D5.2 Current Priorities ...............................................................................................................259
D6.0 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................266 CHAPTER E Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Implementing the Draft FMS............267 E1.0 Biophysical Issues...................................................................................................................268
E1.1 Outline of the process to assess the potential of the FMS to reduce risk....................268 E1.2 The Target Species ..............................................................................................................272
E1.2.1 Changes to Risks Caused by the Operation of the Fishery.....................................272 E1.2.2 Changes to Risks from External Factors....................................................................280
E1.3 Bycatch Species ...................................................................................................................282 E1.4 Threatened and Protected Species ...................................................................................284
E1.4.1 Implications of the Draft FMS for Threatened and Protected Species .................284 E1.4.2 Effectiveness of Measures to Protect Threatened and Protected Species ............285
E1.5 Other Species, Assemblages and Habitat........................................................................286 E1.6 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime ..............289 E1.7 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................290
E2.0 Economic Issues ......................................................................................................................291 E2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................291 E2.2 Profitability and Productivity in the Fishery..................................................................291 E2.3 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime ..............292 E2.4 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................293
E3.0 Social Issues .............................................................................................................................295 E3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................295 E3.2 Changes to Risks to Shareholders, Divers, Deckhands and Local Communities......295
E3.2.1 Employment .................................................................................................................295 E3.2.2 Equity Issues.................................................................................................................296 E3.2.3 Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement .............................................................296
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page iv
E3.3 Changes to Risks to Indigenous Peoples.........................................................................297 E3.3.1 Traditional Fishing and Access..................................................................................297 E3.3.2 Community Well Being ..............................................................................................298 E3.3.3 Indigenous Fisheries Strategy....................................................................................298
E3.4 Changes to Risks to Heritage ............................................................................................301 E3.5 Changes to Health Risks to Divers and Consumers......................................................301
E3.5.1 Divers ............................................................................................................................301 E3.5.2 Consumers ....................................................................................................................301
E3.6 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime ..............302 E3.7 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................302
CHAPTER F Justification of Preferred Options in the Draft FMS ...........................................304 F1.0 The Need for the Abalone Fishery .......................................................................................305
F1.1 Economic Considerations ..................................................................................................305 F1.2 Employment Considerations.............................................................................................305 F1.3 Supply of Seafood...............................................................................................................306
F2.0 Justification of Measures in the Draft FMS in Terms of the Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development ...............................................................................................................307
F2.1 Precautionary Principle......................................................................................................308 F2.2 Intragenerational Equity ....................................................................................................309 F2.3 Intergenerational Equity ....................................................................................................311 F2.4 Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecological Integrity..................................................312 F2.5 Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms.............................................313
F3.0 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................315 CHAPTER G References ................................................................................................................316
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page v
LIST OF TABLES Table C1. Broad comparison of management arrangements for blacklip abalone fisheries in
Australia..................................................................................................................................165 Table D1: Overview of characteristics of the stock of abalone in NSW .................................208 Table D2. Performance indicators and trigger points for Goals 1-8 of the Management
Strategy....................................................................................................................................246 Table D3. Proposed Strategic Plan for Abalone Research ........................................................260 Table E1.1 Summary of components of the biophysical environment at greatest risk from
the existing activity and issues and information gaps that the FMS needs to address...................................................................................................................................................269
Table E1.2 Proposed management responses in the draft FMS that aim to directly reduce risk to the target species........................................................................................................272
Table E1.3. Summary of the potential impacts of implementing the draft FMS on key sub-components of the target species.........................................................................................280
Table E1.4 Proposed management responses in the draft FMS that aim to reduce risk to bycatch.....................................................................................................................................283
Table E1.4. Summary of the risk from the operation of the fishery on bycatch ....................284 Table E1.5 Proposed management responses in the FMS that aim to directly reduce risk to
other species, assemblages and habitat ..............................................................................287 Table E1.6. Summary of the risk from the operation of the fishery on several aspects of
other species, assemblages and habitat ..............................................................................289 Table E3.1. IFS input to draft Abalone FMS ...............................................................................300
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page vi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure D1. NSW coast, showing abalone assessment regions 1-6, marine parks and aquatic
reserves where abalone harvesting is not permitted and the current general closure to the taking of abalone .............................................................................................................211
Figure D2. Goals, Objectives and Responses in the Fisheries Management Strategy ..........221 Figure D3. Example of how a single management response can affect multiple goals and
objectives.................................................................................................................................221
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-160
CHAPTER C CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE
MANAGEMENT REGIMES
A key requirement of environmental impact assessment in New South Wales is that alternatives be
considered in relation to any proposed activity subject to an EIS. The commercial Abalone Fishery is
an established activity and its proposed future operation and management are described in the draft
Fisheries Management Strategy (FMS), detailed in Chapter D. Alternatives considered here include:
not having a commercial fishery; not changing the existing operations and management; and a variety
of high level alternative strategies that have been considered in developing the draft FMS.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-161
C1.0 INTRODUCTION
Management responses in the draft FMS have been developed to reduce the risks associated
with the current operation of the fishery (as described in Chapter B). During the
development of these management responses numerous alternatives were considered.
These ranged from consideration of alternative broad-scale approaches in policy to
alternatives for specific management responses. For example, risk related to the harvest of
abalone commercially could be controlled through alternative broad-scale approaches in
policy, such as managing the level of total catch by quota system (i.e. output control) or by
addressing the level of effort by regulating the number of divers, areas accessible to divers,
etc (i.e. input control). Further, within each of these broad-scale approaches, a range of
specific alternatives exist, such as the strategies by which the appropriate catch or effort may
be determined. Rather than attempt to detail all combinations of alternatives considered,
this section considers some of the more practical management responses considered to
address the risks (Chapter B) in the current operation of the fishery, taking into
consideration:
• the no fishery alternative;
• no change to existing management arrangements;
• alternative harvesting methods and strategies;
• alternative performance indicators and monitoring programs;
• alternative arrangements for cost recovery or funding sources for management
responses.
The draft FMS describes management responses that would directly address the risks, while
other management responses will contribute to the ongoing development of strategies to
address risks over time. For example, the risks of impact from the commercial fishery to
bycatch species, associated habitats and ecosystems are considered to be low to moderate,
and two management responses are proposed in the draft FMS in an attempt to further
reduce this risk. The first management response proposes to continue to develop and
implement a program for increasing knowledge (i.e. including monitoring) of the effects of
removing legal-sized abalone on the environment. The second management response
relates to the use of any knowledge developed to inform and modify fishing practices to
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-162
reduce any potential affects of the fishery on the environment. Finally, some of the
alternatives considered in the development of the FMS may not be warranted now, but may
become more appropriate in the future.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-163
C2.0 ABALONE FISHERIES OUTSIDE NEW SOUTH WALES
Species of abalone are harvested in many temperate countries around the world, many of
which are managing risks similar to that likely in NSW (Jenkins 2004). Importantly, the
blacklip abalone is harvested commercially and recreationally in Victoria, Tasmania, South
Australia and Western Australia, along with up to two other species (McShane 1999). A
useful starting point for considering alternative strategies of management in NSW is to
consider how abalone fisheries are managed elsewhere in southern Australia.
Management of blacklip abalone fisheries within Australia are generally similar, although
some differences do exist (Table C1). All states have approved management plans, most of
which include objectives, management responses of strategies. All except Western Australia
have specific management responses or strategies for achieving objectives; Western
Australia is in the process of designing specific strategies for its fishery for black lip abalone.
Apart from South Australia, where the greenlip abalone is an important harvested species,
NSW has the smallest annual allowable commercial quota for black lip abalone. All states
except Tasmania have linked catch quotas to diving entitlements, although proposals to
separate are being developed in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Tasmania
has created two entitlements in the fishery; one for quota and another for diving. Although
there are over 100 diving entitlements in Tasmania there are much fewer actual divers
operating as not all holders of diving entitlements have current access to quota. NSW and
Tasmania quota holders can sell part of their quota to other quota holders or new entrants
on a permanent basis, although in NSW there is a minimum share/quota holding required
for retaining a diving entitlement (Section B1.3.2.2).
In all states, owners of an abalone fishing entitlement (or in Tasmania, an entitlement to dive
for abalone) may nominate a person to dive on their behalf. There is provision to trade
quota in all fisheries. In all states, traded quota is only valid for the duration of a fishing
period. Tasmania, Victoria and South Australia have regional TACCs, while NSW and
Western Australia have a state wide TACC. Currently, NSW has voluntary catch targets
(with some flexibility attached) for different regions. Regional TACCs used in other states
are in the order of hundreds of tonnes whereas the regional catch targets used in NSW in the
2004/5 fishing period ranged from 5 to 105 tonnes.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-164
All states apart from NSW use variable size limits as a management tool. Victoria, South
Australia and Tasmania have size limits for different areas. Areas to which size limits are
applied range from very small areas (i.e. < 100 m) to over hundreds of kilometres and
depend on how similar the growth of abalone is within a defined area. Victoria, South
Australia and Western Australia have provisions in their management plans for harvesting
stunted populations at smaller sizes at designated times and areas. Moreover, NSW has
trialled harvesting on a width limit (as opposed to the standard length limit). A width limit
was proposed so that effort could be distributed evenly between abalone with different
morphological characteristics. Importantly, these variable size limits and provisions for
harvesting stunted stock recognise the large variability that may occur in growth rates on
quite small geographical scales.
Outside NSW, there are no seasonal closures for commercial harvest of abalone (Table C1).
However, as TACCs in other state abalone fisheries are generally caught within a timeframe
of months (and weeks in some instances) there can be times in the year when stocks are not
harvested. This is in contrast to the NSW fishery where the catch is spread over the whole
fishing period. In NSW, a voluntary closure has in the past been initiated based on social
and economic considerations. The closure has extended through January in recent years,
although it was not implemented in 2004 and 2005 due to a recommendation by Industry
(Section B1.1.3.4). Finally, recreational and Indigenous bag limits apply in all states, with a
maximum bag limit of 10 applying in Victoria, Western Australia and NSW. In NSW, there
is also provision for Indigenous groups to request from DPI a permit to collect abalone for
special cultural events, the size of the harvest being determined on a case by case basis.
Estimates of the non-commercial catch of blacklip abalone are used, in NSW, when
determining the TACC.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-165
Table C1. Broad comparison of management arrangements for blacklip abalone fisheries in Australia as at February 2005. Arrangements for NSW are as under the current management, not as proposed under the draft FMS.
Key Management Strategy Victoria Tasmania South Australia
Western Australia
New South Wales
1. Approved management plan 2002 2000 2004 1992 2000
2. Documented objectives/specific management responses or strategies
yes yes yes under development
yes
3. Performance monitoring, triggers & review
yes yes yes under development
yes
4. Output management (TACC)
yes: 1,359 t yes: 2,380 t yes: 202.1 t yes:
meat weight equivalent to ~330 t whole weight
yes: 206 t
5. Quota/diving entitlement linked separated linked linked linked
6. Provision for nominated divers
yes yes yes yes yes
7. Tradable quota units/shares yes yes yes yes yes
8. Regional management yes yes yes yes no (voluntary targets)
9. Area-based size-limits yes: 100, 110, 120 mm & provision to access stunted stock
yes: 114, 127, 132, 136, 140 mm
yes: 125, 130 mm; & 110 mm in fish-downs
no: 140 mm ,
with provision for fish-downs of stunted stocks
no: 115 mm
10. Seasonal closures no no no no no, voluntary:
11. Recreational/Indigenous bag-limit
yes
10
yes
5
yes
5
yes
10
yes
10 + provision for special cultural events
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-166
The comparison of management of blacklip abalone in NSW to other states is important for
two reasons. First, it shows that NSW has a system of management that is highly developed
and comparable to other states. Second, it suggests some possible alternative methods of
management, for example in terms of the relationship between quotas and diving
entitlements and the use of area-based size limits. However, it is important to note that the
NSW fishery is significantly smaller than many other states, and any management
arrangements need to be tuned to the local circumstances. Both of these alternatives have
been considered as part of the draft FMS with some elements proposed for implementation,
or to be the subject of research for incorporation into future management strategies.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-167
C3.0 BROAD-SCALE ALTERNATIVES
C3.1 The No Fishery Alternative
The ‘no fishery’ option is reviewed here in terms of reducing the level of risk from the
commercial fishery to various aspects of the environment. If the commercial fishery were to
be closed, there would be significant economic and social implications for shareholders,
divers, fishing communities, the local and state economy, and the general public in terms of
supply of seafood, seafood trade (domestic and foreign trade), employment and economic
benefits.
C3.1.1 Economics and Employment
In 2004/5, commercial abalone divers produced approximately 206 t of abalone, of which
virtually all was exported. Under the no fishery alternative the community would lose its
direct contribution to the local economy which currently ranges from $8M to $12.5M per
year. The processing industry currently has a turnover of $16M due to processing abalone
from NSW and other states; most of this revenue coming from exports. Under category 1
share management the closure of the fishery would require compensation to be paid to
shareholders and would currently be between $40M and $90M, depending on the agreed
share value. This would be a cost to government, and hence the community.
Under share management commercial operators are allocated a right of access to the fishery
by way of shares. For this privileged access to a community resource, shareholders pay a
‘community contribution’ (see Chapter B1.3.2.17 for details).
In December 2003, there were a total of 117 direct jobs employed in the catching sector of
industry (Section B3.4). The abalone processing sector in NSW has an estimated total of 106
direct employees attributable to the processing of abalone sourced from NSW.
The employment multiplier from expenditure is approximately 1.5. There are
approximately 111 people indirectly dependent on the Abalone Fishery and processing
sector in NSW who provide inputs such as boats and diving equipment and supplies to the
processing sector. The total of jobs in NSW directly and indirectly related to abalone is
estimated to be 334. A study by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research of
the Abalone industry in Victoria also indicates that the flow on impact to the national
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-168
economy is an additional 12.5% of the regional estimates for Victoria (NIEIR 2004).
Assuming the NSW case is similar, there would be an additional 42 jobs created from the
NSW abalone industry giving a total of 376 jobs nationally.
The ‘no fishery’ option would create further unemployment in rural areas. Abalone divers,
their families and communities would have a reduction in social capital. Those who depend
directly or indirectly on abalone divers would face financial difficulties and would likely
depend on social security funds and services to an increased extent. This would be an
additional cost to government.
C3.1.2 Management and Research
Management costs of $930,000 per year are currently paid to government for a range of
administrative, research and compliance functions. Under the ‘no fishery’ alternative
research into abalone would be severely curtailed and likely cease without funding from the
commercial fishery. Researchers would find it more difficult to secure funds and political
support for their research if abalone resources were not commercially exploited. The
research funded through the Abalone Fishery also has significant, but less tangible, benefits,
including enhancement of knowledge about reef ecosystems, potential indicators of change
to the coastal environment (e.g. caused by pollution, global warming, etc), and education of
scientists which can lead to transfer of skills to other areas of ecology and fisheries biology.
Management fees also support compliance and enforcement officers. Without this support
for services there would be less protection across the whole fishery and a considerable
expense for government to replace.
C3.1.3 Recreational, Indigenous and Illegal Harvest
In the absence of commercial harvesting of abalone, it is to be expected that there would be
an increase in the abundance of abalone of sizes ≥ 115 mm (i.e. the maximum legal size,
MLS) in areas where illegal activity was not occurring. There would probably also be an
increase in the abundance of smaller abalone in these areas, but this increase would not be
large because the MLS currently provides for a large proportion of abalone to reproduce
before they are harvested legally. The fishery allows the use of breathing apparatus, so
abalone can be collected commercially throughout their depth range.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-169
In this context, under a ‘no fishery’ alternative, it is probable that more abalone would
become available to recreational and Indigenous divers in some areas, which would clearly
benefit those users of the resource. There would also potentially be a refuge created in
deeper water, because non-commercial divers cannot use breathing apparatus to aid in the
collection of abalone (this is discussed further in Section C4.1). An increased harvest by
recreational divers would be of little benefit to the community. For example, it is unlikely
that the recreational harvest of abalone would enhance the economies of coastal centres.
Specifically, minimal diving equipment is required, no bait is used and the opportunity to
collect more abalone would hold little benefit for local tourism. This is in contrast with, for
example, sport or game fishing, which can attract tourists who are likely to spend far more
in pursuit of their recreational activities.
An increased harvest by Indigenous divers would benefit local Indigenous communities
culturally, but it is not clear if an increased harvest would significantly enhance the number
or value of cultural events. As with recreational harvesting, there would be limited benefits
to non-Indigenous coastal communities of NSW. It should be noted that the draft FMS
(Chapter D) has specific objectives to enhance the relationship between the commercial
fishery and Indigenous harvesting of abalone.
Without commercial harvesting of abalone, however, it is likely that illegal harvesting
would continue and probably increase in some areas. In order to take advantage of the
current export markets, which constitute the main market for abalone collected in NSW,
illegally collected abalone would need to be exported illegally. This would be difficult given
that the export market is essentially a live trade. Alternatively, abalone caught illegally in
NSW could either be sold as preserved or dried product at a lesser value, or consigned live
through other markets (i.e. their origin of capture concealed and product sent from
interstate). Either approach would represent a significant loss to the NSW economy. On
balance, the ‘no fishery’ alternative would probably lead to an increase in illegal harvest and
support organised crime, with limited resources available for compliance and virtually no
resources available for monitoring the stock of abalone in terms of abundance and size.
C3.2 No Change to Existing Management Arrangements
The existing share management plan has provided a firm basis for managing the Abalone
Fishery in NSW. It has proven to be relatively adaptive, as shown by changes to the catch
quota, implementation of closures in response to Perkinsus and initiation of research.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-170
Moreover, it has helped to inform management in relation to other reef-based fisheries,
specifically sea urchins. These actions have also helped to guide the management of the
non-commercial sector, with changes to bag and size limits, and to methods of collection.
Hence, the existing share management plan has had a large and positive influence both
within and outside the Abalone Fishery.
The requirement by Government that all fisheries in NSW undergo environmental impact
assessment has provided a significant opportunity for the Abalone Fishery to re-assess and
revise management arrangements. The review of existing operations (Chapter B) has closely
examined these operations and identified a range of improvements that could be made to
management arrangements and these are proposed within the draft FMS (Chapter D). In
particular, the review has identified potential risks to the sustainability of the industry due
to a range of internal and external factors, as described in Chapter B. Hence, there is an
opportunity to modify or replace existing management arrangements with new
arrangements that will ensure that the operation of the fishery responds adequately to
current and predicted concerns. The share management plan will respond to new
arrangements appropriately.
Given the requirements for impact assessment of the Abalone Fishery (as with other
fisheries in NSW), the development of external factors affecting the fishery and the
identification of a range of improvements that could be made to the management of the
fishery, the alternative of continuing with existing arrangements as described in the share
management plan is not considered desirable or feasible.
C3.3 Structure of the Draft FMS
The detailed structure of the draft FMS is presented in Chapter D, but it is important to
consider from a broad perspective if there are desirable alternatives to this structure. The
overall intention of the draft FMS is to be able to:
• manage risks that have been identified in the current operation of the Abalone
Fishery (Chapter B) and in the way it is proposed that the fishery would operate
(Section D2.0); and
• provide a framework to manage unforeseen risks that may arise during the life of the
FMS.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-171
Clearly, some risks are more likely to occur and have greater consequences than others.
Thus, the draft FMS must also be able to identify priorities to address identified risks and
present a schedule of how, when and at what cost those priorities can be addressed.
The broad approach of preparing a draft FMS is a requirement of all fisheries in NSW
subject to an EIS. Thus, there is no feasible alternative to the development of a fishery
management strategy and the EIS process. The structure of the draft FMS for the Abalone
Fishery broadly follows FMSs already prepared for other fisheries in NSW and specified in
guidelines prepared by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources
(DIPNR – Appendix A2). It comprises three tiers: Goals, Objectives and Management
Responses. These are supported by requirements for performance reporting and monitoring
(including definitions of performance indicators and trigger points) and by a plan of
ongoing research and development of a fishery code of practice. Previous and current
research on abalone in NSW is of a high standard, demonstrating willingness by the fishery
to acquire the best information possible. The structure of the draft FMS has two important
components. First, it encapsulates methods of operation, possible risks associated with these
methods and appropriate responses if risks eventuate. Second, it provides for a wide range
of alternatives that can be initiated where appropriate, with both Industry input (i.e.
ABMAC) and independent scientific input (the TAC Committee). Thus, the draft FMS
represents a dynamic and flexible approach to the operation and management of the
Abalone Fishery.
The draft FMS (and its associated code of practice) is built upon the existing operation of the
fishery and Industry is confident that it is workable and addresses risks identified at this
time. It is also flexible enough that it can respond to a range of threats that may arise in the
short to medium term. Thus, if a more structured approach is required in future, either in
certain areas or overall format, it can be adapted when the FMS is next revised.
The remainder of this chapter considers alternatives to the way the fishery currently
operates or is proposed to operate. These are described in terms of harvesting methods,
performance indicators and monitoring, and cost recovery, including sources of funding.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-172
C4.0 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO THE OPERATION OF THE
FISHERY
Several feasible alternatives to aspects of the operation of the fishery are described as part of
this chapter, which are listed as follows:
• appropriate regional distribution of catch; and
• controls to the number of divers.
Decisions will be made in relation to each of these when the final determination for the
fishery is made following public exhibition and consideration of any submissions.
Some of these issues have been incorporated into management plans in other states (Section
C2.0). The following sections consider alternatives to the way in which abalone are
harvested and the fishery is structured. It also presents alternatives to the above issues.
C4.1 Alternative Methods for Collecting and Delivering Abalone
As detailed in Chapter B, the operation of the Abalone Fishery involves a relatively small
amount of equipment but requires considerable efficiency to ensure that the abalone
collected for sale are kept alive and in good condition. The key elements of the fishery
include the use of:
• a fast, seaworthy boat that can be transported to launching points by trailer;
• breathing apparatus to enable divers to remain submerged for long periods and
hence most efficiently seek out and collect abalone;
• a hand-held ‘abalone iron’ to remove abalone from rock surfaces;
• holding tanks on boats to maintain abalone once collected;
• communications to enable divers and processors to meet at landing points and then
to weigh and transfer the catch in preparation for sale; and
• diver knowledge and experience that enable harvesting to be safe and efficient.
Superficially, some alternatives exist for each of the above elements. For example, it may be
possible to collect some abalone from shore or without the use of breathing apparatus (i.e.
by snorkel diving). In fact, much of the recreational and Indigenous collection is done from
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-173
the shore and all is done without the use of breathing apparatus (note: Illegal collection uses
both snorkel and breathing apparatus). However, when applied to the commercial fishery
these alternatives would vastly reduce the efficiency of the fishery and potentially lead to
safety risks for divers. It may also be argued that there should be a depth limit to collection
of abalone, hence providing a refuge in deeper water. However, most of the stock is in
shallow water and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to enforce such a
requirement, given that depth contours are highly variable and deeper areas are very
frequently adjacent to shallow areas (an exception would be offshore reefs). A far better
approach in relation to refugia is the closure of specific areas (e.g. Jervis Bay Marine Park)
where there is more certainty regarding boundaries and their effectiveness can be more
easily monitored, although consideration needs to be made of the potential for illegal
activity to erode the benefits of such closure (Palmer 2004).
The use of an abalone iron to remove individuals is extremely efficient and its design causes
minimal damage to abalone and the surrounding reef. A pointed knife, screwdriver, etc. is
often used recreationally, but these are less efficient and risk damaging individual animals.
Removal of abalone by hand alone is extremely difficult, particularly if abalone are
disturbed beforehand and can apply maximal suction on the substratum. Thus, in terms of
efficiency, causing minimal damage to abalone and the reef environment, there are currently
no feasible alternatives to the methods of capture that are used now and proposed for the
ongoing operation of the fishery.
Holding tanks on some boats are necessary to ensure that abalone are alive and in good
condition when transferred to the processors. It has been assessed (Chapter B) that there is a
slight risk of transfer of reef biota and pathogens between reefs as water in the tanks is re-
circulated (see also Jenkins 2004). It is proposed in the draft FMS that this risk be further
assessed. At this stage, it is considered that no practical alternative to the current operation
of holding tanks is available or warranted.
The use of relatively small boats is necessary to enable working close to the shore. Larger
boats would be less efficient and potentially more at risk in shallow reef areas. The transfer
of catch to processors occurs at easily accessible landing points which can be visited by
compliance officers. At this stage, there are no feasible alternatives to this component of the
fishery, although the draft FMS identifies some aspects that can be adjusted to improve
safety, efficiency and knowledge regarding regions where divers operate (Chapter D).
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-174
C4.2 Key Alternative Management Approaches
The following sub-sections identify alternative management approaches that are to be
specifically considered. These relate directly to Goals, Objectives and Management
Responses identified within the draft FMS (Section D3.3).
C4.2.1 Sustainability of the Catch of Abalone
This issue is dealt with in Goal 2 of the draft FMS (Section D3.3). The key components of
sustainability are the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and minimum legal size
(MLS), which are the primary management responses used to control the risk of over-
depletion of the state-wide biomass of abalone. The combination of TACC and MLS is an
advanced form of management that is used by only two fisheries in NSW (abalone and
lobster). If reliable information about the stock is available, this form of management can
provide substantial control of the risk from the fishery to the target species. This is possible
as the TAC Committee estimate the biomass of abalone that escapes harvest and contribute
to ongoing reproduction of the population. The number of abalone that contributes to
ongoing reproduction is also protected by the MLS which prevents the legal harvest of
individuals until they have grown to a size well above that at which they are likely to
mature. Current management of the fishery sets the TACC annually to maintain biomass
within the performance indicators of the current share management plan, while the MLS has
been constant since 1987.
There is a range of combinations available when setting the TACC and MLS to enable an
appropriate number of abalone to escape harvest and contribute to ongoing production of
stock. These include limiting effort or catch alone, or considering different combinations of
TACC and MLS in order to get similar levels of risk to the target species. For example, a
smaller MLS or a maximum legal size (as used in the NSW Lobster Fishery) may be
appropriate with a reduced TACC. The combination could ensure a similar number of
abalone escape harvest and contribute to ongoing reproduction of the population. While the
number of abalone escaping harvest under different combinations of TACC and MLS could
be similar, the size-structure would be different. Modified size-limits may also be able to
reduce the risk to the target species (through increasing the abundance of abalone at a size
likely to maximise successful reproduction), and economic efficiency (through supplying
abalone or a preferred size to the market). A reduced MLS may also lower the availability of
abalone to illegal operators and contribute to a reduction in the illegal catch.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-175
Essentially, the use of the TACC and MLS represent an advanced and well developed
approach to managing abalone in NSW. Currently, other alternatives are less likely to
deliver the same safeguarding to the stock. There is much potential for reducing risk to the
stock by adjusting the TACC and MLS (including the potential to implement a maximum
legal size) and the management arrangements built in to the existing and proposed fishery
provide for these alternatives to be implemented if and when necessary.
Despite the significant benefits that the TACC provides for the Abalone Fishery, there are
some limitations of setting a TACC on a state-wide basis as it is not matched to the
population biology of abalone. The population biology of abalone (Section 2.3.1) would
suggest that a state-wide TACC can provide adequate protection for the population only if
catches are distributed appropriately; if they are not, there is a risk of serial depletion of local
populations which might in turn lead to over-depletion of the broader population. To
completely account for small-scale variation in demography of abalone, TACCs or any
spatial catch limits would have to be set for very small areas (i.e. within individual reefs).
In recent times, effort has become less uniformly distributed throughout the area of
operation of the fishery than it has in the past. In general, fishing effort has shifted to the
more southern regions of the fishery. This has been due to the effects of Perkinsus in the
north (Section B1.5.1 and B2.3.3.2) as well as other factors such as: the progressive
retirement/relocation of some endorsement holders previously based around Region 1; and
higher travel costs for divers set against fixed contracts offered by shareholders. Regardless,
this led to a catch for Regions 5 and 6 in the 18 month fishing period from January 2002 to
June 2003 that exceeded the recommended regional catch target. That is, the target and
actual catches for Regions 5 and 6 combined was 206t and 228.4t, respectively. It is
important to note that the catch for all regions in this fishing period was 450 t under the total
statewide TACC, which may suggest that the potential additional catch from regions 5 and 6
could have been higher (i.e. 250.8t assuming a regional pro rata addition.) In the 2003/4
fishing period the regional catch recommendation was exceeded for Region 2. The reported
catch (41 t) was 20 % greater than the recommended catch of 34 t. Catches for other regions
were less than the recommended targets.
There are potential risks of exceeding recommended regional targets over a period of years
(i.e. serial depletion of stock in some regions, inefficiencies for divers in terms of increased
search times and an increase in the ‘turn-over’ rate of under-size abalone). Under the
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-176
current system of management, it would be expected that the regional targets would be
adjusted accordingly by the TACC Committee to compensate for these effects, but no
assurance could be given that this action would rectify any problems as the ‘targets’ are only
voluntary. It is the potential for catches above the regional targets to occur in a specific
region(s) over a series of years that is relevant from a risk assessment point of view (Section
B2.3.4).
The draft FMS seeks to ensure that commercial catches are distributed appropriately at a
range of spatial scales (Section D3.3) and to mitigate the potential risks outlined above. The
main contrasting alternatives to the management response presented in Section D3.3 (MR
2.2b) are described below, along with discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
each proposal. It should be noted that there are potentially other variations to the options
presented that might provide a more appropriate management response for mitigating the
risk to the stock of undesirable concentrations of fishing effort. These could, for example,
involve a staged-approach that blended the options presented. For example, the less
regulated approach (I) could be trialled with the option of switching to a more regulated
approach (II) if agreed criteria were not adhered to.
Option I. Continuation of the application of voluntary regional targets as specified by
the TAC Committee, with improved communication to and within Industry to adhere to
the targets basis.
This proposal from Industry is based on what currently occurs in the fishery with further
enhancement. To be effective it requires adherence to recommended regional targets and a
flow of information from DPI to Industry, and within Industry, about the distribution of
catch among fishing areas. Adherence to regional targets would be reinforced through the
proposed Abalone Fishery Code of Practice. The arrangement could have provision for
closure and review if industry exceeded the recommended catches by an amount that is
considered significant.
This arrangement provides some flexibility in the level of catch for each region
recommended by the TAC Committee (i.e. the 10 % buffer). This has a number of
advantages. Flexibility in regional catch would allow divers to catch their quota in other
regions if environmental conditions (within a fishing period) reduced the availability of
abalone for commercial harvest in a particular region (e.g. from inundation by sand as
occurred in Region 3 in 2003 (TAC Committee 2004a). Flexibility in regional catches also
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-177
accounts for the inherent imprecision in the process of determining an appropriate catch at
such a small-scale. For example, if divers had been forced to take the recommended target
for Region 3 when inundation of sand occurred, this would have had potential to cause
overfishing in the region. Although area-based quota is used to manage abalone fisheries in
other states, the areas (and size of the stock within each area) are generally much larger than
in NSW and hence, are less vulnerable to imprecision in the stock assessment process. This
alternative also has the advantage of relatively low additional administrative costs and is
consistent with a contemporary approach for Industry to take greater responsibility for the
management of commercial fisheries through an appropriate governance arrangement,
provided an effective means for this to occur is developed and implemented.
The arrangement has the disadvantage of having no guarantee that the whole of Industry
adheres to regional catch targets and is dependent on adherence to the proposed Abalone
Fishery Code of Practice. Harvesting in excess of regional targets, particularly over a period
of years, would increase the risk of over-fishing in some regions. Under this proposal there
is also potential for the TAC Committee to lower the state-wide TACC as a precautionary
approach against regional targets not being adhered to. This proposal also has the potential
to concentrate fishing effort at the beginning of a fishing period, as divers may rush to
harvest abalone from the regions where catch rates are greatest before the target catch is
reached. If a region’s target catch is exceeded before the end of a fishing period some divers
may have to travel further a field than desired and incur unwanted expenses. This situation
may occur to divers who, for a variety of reasons, were unavailable to work early in a
designated fishing period. Such situations could cause social conflict among Industry.
Option II. TACC regional targets are used to allocate individual quota on a pro-rata
regional basis, with provision for shareholders to trade quota between regions.
This is the alternative approach to the voluntary arrangement described above and is based
on the allocation of portions of the state-wide TACC to different areas (regions). It is
proposed that allocations of quota would be applied to the following groups of regions: 1
and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6. A trigger point would separate any grouping if catch within a single
region exceeds its target by 10 %.
This approach has the advantage of controlling the upper limit of exploitation at a regional
scale, and, with prior reporting, has a greater likelihood of all Industry participants adhering
to regional targets. This may allow the TAC Committee to be more certain about their
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-178
assessment. Allocation of individual quota at a regional scale would reduce the potential for
social conflict among Industry. Divers would be able to harvest their quota for a particular
region at any time during a designated fishing period without fear of a regional target being
exceeded before a fishing period had ended. Regional quota could also be traded,
potentially allowing some divers, who are reluctant to travel, to harvest mostly in their
nominated regions. Tradeable regional quota may minimise the costs of travelling and
allow divers and shareholders the opportunity for more efficient planning within a fishing
period. Finally, this approach has potential to reduce the risk of over-fishing a region by
reducing the potential for Industry to harvest above regional targets for a period of years.
This arrangement has the disadvantage of having additional costs that would be required to
make it effective. Additional compliance resources would be required to monitor prior
reporting by Industry and, potentially, a vessel monitoring system (VMS) may be required
to ensure catches have been taken from where reported. Further, there are administrative
costs associated with increased level of quota-trading that would occur under this proposal.
Another disadvantage of this proposal is that there is less flexibility to respond to changes in
stock occurring in a region within a fishing period (e.g. inundation by sand, illegal catch,
storms, weaker than expected recruitment), although there is no guarantee that the
voluntary approach would ensure an appropriate adjustment in catch. If such changes
occurred in a region without an adjustment in catch, there would be an increased risk of
over-fishing that region if Industry was still to take the portion of TACC allocated to it.
Finally, there is potential for this arrangement to cause operational inefficiencies if
shareholders were unsuccessful in trading regional quota according to the needs of their
businesses or their divers. That is, divers may have to work in unfamiliar areas and incur
extra costs associated with travelling. Some shareholders may be reluctant to trade quota
from regions where catch rates are good.
Multiple regional TACCs (be they voluntary targets or mandatory limits) are limited in their
ability to control risk to the target species as they are only able to address depletion at a
regional scale. Determination of TACC at a regional scale could require increased
monitoring and assessment resources to ensure the same level of certainty that is applied to
state-wide TACC determination. That is, precision and generality of fishery-independent
surveys are reduced at a regional scale.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-179
C4.2.2 Fisheries Management Services
Management of a fishery requires administrative and other services. It is reasonable that
shareholders contribute some of the cost of management according to how much they
benefit from the arrangements. When users pay the cost of management there is potential
for management to be more efficient than where government is subsidising management
services (Arnason 2001).
Part of the share management concept is that increased ownership leads to greater
involvement of shareholders in fishery management and development due to the incentives
for shareholders to build up the resource. It would be expected that the share and TACC
system means that shareholders know what can be harvested and can devise the most
efficient way to take their share of the allowed catch. Also, shareholders should be able to
inspect the services provided by management and to examine the benefits than could accrue
to the fishery from management cost expenditure. Initially, shareholders may wish to
minimise management costs, but if the benefits from management visibly flow on to the
shareholder, more investment in management could be expected to add value. A number of
alternatives exist as to how services could be delivered for the Abalone Fishery that would
influence their effectiveness and efficiency.
In general terms, complete government control of services provided to a fishery might lead
to increased costs of management compared to arrangements where there is contestable
supply (assuming that the relevant services can be supplied effectively by other providers at
a lower cost). On the other hand, no government control of some services, such as
enforcement has the potential to have negative effects on other stakeholders in the fishery as
interests may not be protected adequately. This is an important consideration in decisions
about the delivery of services applicable to a public resource.
More alternatives in service delivery arrangements become available when management
services are specified via service delivery agreements between shareholders and service
providers, including the government. Through service delivery agreements shareholders
can have greater input into how the fishery is managed, paying for the desired standard of
any service required. Agreements would undergo independent auditing to facilitate their
effective delivery. Alternative supply of management services can be achieved through
outsourcing. For example, the Victorian Abalone Fishery outsources a large part of its stock
assessment program. The development of service delivery agreements for administration,
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-180
research and compliance in the Abalone Fishery proposed under the draft FMS provides the
opportunity for some services to be outsourced.
The draft FMS recognises the high level of service being provided currently by government
in terms of management, research and compliance, whilst seeking flexibility in provision of
services for the future. Clearly there are several alternative models that are available to
provide services to Industry and the flexibility sought through the draft FMS seeks to adopt
these models as appropriate.
C4.2.3 Alternatives for Promoting Economic Viability
The abalone industry is driven by the demand of Asian markets where most abalone
collected from NSW is exported. The economic viability of the fishery is most sensitive to
price and catch fluctuations. Price changes tend to be due to external factors not under the
control of the fishery, such as changes in the Asian economies, exchange rates and the
impact of competing product. Operational costs for businesses are labour and expenses,
such as boats, fuel and business support at prevailing costs. Over the past decade, the costs
of management fees, and the community contribution have become part of maintaining
economically viable businesses.
Where the TACC or price is falling, it is likely that shareholdings will have reduced
economic viability. Shareholders should expect price fluctuations and be able to absorb
these if they are short term, moderate and if prices recover. Declines in beach price
combined with declines in TACC occurring over a longer period, as has been the case for the
Abalone Fishery since 2000, have eroded economic viability.
Such fluctuations present a number of alternatives for a shareholder seeking to maintain
economic viability. The central concept of the share and TACC system is that market
downturns cause producers to adjust their share holdings through trading of shares in the
market, thereby letting the market make the necessary adjustments. Evidence in the
Abalone Fishery is that shareholders are reluctant to sell shares when the share market is
down and that markets are thin, with few buyers being evident. Alternative strategies for
shareholders under the market system are based around ways of reducing the costs of
harvesting. This may involve hiring a diver to increase efficiency, or alternatively,
dispensing with a nominated diver and returning to diving. Other alternatives are for
shareholders to rationalise and share the services of a diver to reduce production costs.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-181
There are a number of alternatives for making the necessary adjustments for maintaining or
promoting economic viability in a share managed fishery. One option is that management
avoids intervening in a market system as this may lead to distortions in the market process.
Other options involve regulating capacities of the fishery or changing the limits of its
capacity. It is not clear how much policy should intervene in adjusting the capacity in the
fishery and whether it is primarily the role of the market in a TACC system. Capacity could
be regulated by applying minimum shareholdings to increase aggregation of shares through
minimum shareholding provisions. For example, a fisher currently with 70 shares could be
required to increase to 98 shares in the next ten years under such a regime. This would
increase the aggregation of the shares in the fishery and may increase enterprise viability.
Reductions in the cost of production would come from shareholders arranging to employ
fewer divers (and associated crew and equipment) to take the TACC.
There are other alternatives available to address capacity in the fishery that allow the
flexibility required under different circumstances to adjust the number of divers and
individual shareholdings in the fishery within appropriate bounds. For example it is
proposed in the draft FMS that the limit of aggregation of shares held by individuals be
removed and to lower the limit on the minimum number of shares that can be traded from
ten shares to one share. This would allow shareholders more flexibility for adjustment
needed to increase the viability of businesses.
The risk of potential increases to the number of divers in the fishery has been highlighted as
a key issue in the fishery (Section B5.1.3). Increases in the number of divers may not only
erode economic viability but could potentially lead to other problems associated with
compliance, occupational health and safety, and increased disturbance to abalone.
Prior to implementation of the share management plan, 37 persons were endorsed to take an
equal portion of the total allowable catch (333 tonnes at that stage) in the Abalone Fishery
(Section B1.3.1). This was a reduction from over 59 divers at the commencement of the
restricted fishery in 1985 and prior to the introduction of the quota regime. Diver numbers
were reduced in the restricted fishery through an industry funded buyback and a two out
for one in transfer policy. All divers in the restricted fishery were allocated 100 equal shares
in the share management fishery and quota allocated proportionally. In developing the
share management plan, ABMAC strongly supported a reduced minimum shareholding
from 100 to 70 to be eligible to an endorsement, based on the view that this would provide
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-182
employees with greater opportunity to invest in the fishery and therefore greater husbandry
of the resource. This effectively increased the potential number of divers in the fishery.
Although there are currently 42 endorsements, there is potential for this to rise to 52.
Under the current arrangements, it would be expected that the number of divers would
fluctuate with changing economic conditions of the fishery, so that the number of divers
decreased when operating margins were reduced and potentially increased when conditions
improved. Despite the fishery experiencing contrasting economic circumstances since the
inception of the share management plan this has not occurred to the degree expected. The
general trend has been an increase in the number of divers despite a down-turn in economic
viability.
More divers increase the risk of illegal activity occurring as compliance resources allocated
to the commercial sector need to be spread further. In addition, more divers would
potentially increase disturbance to abalone. Although the TACC would be spread among
divers, so there is not necessarily an increase in effort, there would, however, potentially be
more inexperienced divers with potential to increase the rate of damage (Section B2.3.4).
Controlling the number of divers agrees with National Competition Policy. NCP is an
Australia-wide initiative intended to remove, as far as possible, all impediments to
competition and efficiency arising from restrictions contained in legislation. The guiding
principles for NCP reviews of legislation are that it should not restrict competition unless it
can be demonstrated that:
• the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and
• the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.
Legislation relating to the management of common property resources such as fisheries falls
into a special category, since those resources have special characteristics and management
requirements if they are to remain sustainable. This means that not all restrictions contained
in fisheries legislation should be removed, but NCP demands that those that remain must be
necessary, their outcomes must be unable to be achieved in any less restrictive way and they
must be in the public interest. It is understood that the Centre for International Economics
(CIE) reviewed the FM Act according to NCP criteria and concluded that the overall benefits
of restrictions on fishing exceed their costs and that fisheries management objectives can
only be achieved by restricting competition to some degree.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-183
As the number of endorsements currently stands at 42 (i.e. at a level that requires review
under the share management plan) this creates an opportunity for potentially new
management arrangements to be discussed and implemented through the draft FMS. The
draft FMS seeks to ensure that the number of divers is kept at appropriate levels, subject to
determining the means to do this (Section D3.3). This will not only reduce the potential risk
to the economic viability of the fishery but also mitigate other potential risks to the stock.
The main contrasting alternatives to the management response presented in Section D3.3
(MR 4.1b) are described below, along with discussion of the advantages and disadvantages
of each proposal. There are potentially other variations to the options presented that might
provide a more appropriate management response for mitigating the risks associated with
potential increases to the number of divers. For example, under option II where an increase
to the minimum shareholding is proposed, there may be benefits in exploring the potential
of allowing two shareholders to merge shares to reach the minimum shareholding.
Option I. Issue a new diving entitlement to the shareholders who currently hold 70 or
more shares, with the entitlement not transferable except upon sale of the associated
shares or fully transferable separate to shares.
This proposal is supported by ABMAC.
In a rights system, the shareholding and the right to dive can be coupled together as in
NSW, but can also be uncoupled as in Tasmania, establishing a distinct share market and
also a market trading rights to dive. A separate market for diver services is created,
independent of shareholdings, based around the right to dive. In Tasmania the system was
developed to reflect changes that had already occurred in that fishery, where increasing
numbers of divers were leasing their licences from former divers, processors or other
financiers (DPIWE 2004). Under the Tasmanian system a diver needs to be authorised by
the holder of an abalone quota unit to take the abalone which the abalone quota unit
represented. In NSW, the uncoupling of the shareholding right and the right to dive, would
need to be evaluated and the legal implications of establishing diver rights fully
investigated.
The advantages of such a system are that there might be another valuable, tradeable item in
the fishery apart from shares. Separating the diving entitlement from shareholdings would
potentially provide some shelter against the responsibilities that shareholders currently have
for the occupational health and safety of divers. There is potential under such a system that
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-184
there would be less nominated divers as a diving entitlement may be a more accessible
purchase to current divers than shares. This could lead to potentially greater compliance in
the commercial sector as divers owning a diving entitlement would have more
responsibility for their actions. A diver owning an entitlement would have more to lose
than he would as a nominated diver. Potentially, with less nominated (inexperienced)
divers in the fishery there would also be potentially less damage to under-size abalone
(Section B2.3.4). Finally, this system has the advantage of immediately capping the number
of divers at 42. There would also be potential for an industry-funded buyback of diver
entitlements at a lower cost than shares, although it would be necessary to determine how
the costs of such a scheme would be distributed within industry (particularly between those
with an entitlement and those without one).
A disadvantage of such a system is the potential for the values of shares to be reduced
because there would be two tradeable items in the fishery. This would be balanced to some
extent by a potential increase in the value of diving entitlements for those eligible to obtain
one. Investors currently with holdings less than the minimum shareholding for a diving
endorsement, however, would be financially disadvantaged as they would not be
compensated for a potential loss in value to their shares. In particular, any existing
shareholders who entered the fishery with a view to progressively building their
shareholding to 70 shares in order to obtain an endorsement would be disadvantaged. This
could cause conflict among participants in the fishery. These circumstances need thorough
legal evaluation. Another disadvantage would be the cost of the legislative changes
required to instigate the system and the ongoing administrative costs which are currently
not provided for in the FM Act.
Option II. Progressively limit the number of endorsements to dive to 37 by a)
immediately raising the minimum shareholding (to dive) for new entrants into the
fishery to 98, and, b) setting a 10 - year timetable to raise the minimum shareholding
requirement to 98 for all existing shareholders (with provision to trade less than 10
shares).
This alternative involves regulation to obtain a desired upper limit of 37 to the number of
divers. The arrangement would have financial impacts to some shareholders but the
proposed 10 – year timetable would mean the impact was not immediate and allow
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-185
shareholders to plan as to how to proceed. The impact on current shareholdings would be
as follows (NB: based on the cost of shares ranging from $10K to $20K per share):
• 15 shareholders with greater than 98 shares - potential capital gain if they sell;
• 11 shareholders would need up to 18 shares to keep endorsement ($180K to 360K
each);
• 16 shareholders would need 28 shares to keep endorsement ($270K to 540K each);
and
• 7 shareholders have less than 70 shares and do not qualify for an endorsement, with
an associated potential capital gain if they sell.
An advantage of such an arrangement is that the final outcome would limit the number of
divers to 37 or less, thereby reducing the potential risks that too many divers have to
economic viability, compliance and undersize abalone. The process is consistent with the
share management framework and FM Act and so does not involve major changes to
legislation. Shareholders would have an extended period to plan and save to purchase
additional shares to reach the minimum shareholding, with flexible provision to trade in
small amounts of shares.
A disadvantage of the arrangement is that there is substantial cost to the majority of
shareholders (although not immediate) in retaining an endorsement. In addition, an
increase to the minimum shareholding may increase the price of shares as shareholders who
need to increase their shares to reach the minimum shareholding will have to compete with
one another for potentially only a small amount of shares available. In addition, the
arrangement would have no immediate benefits in reducing the current number of divers.
Option III. Continue current arrangements where there is a review of management if
the number of divers exceeds 42.
See Sections B 1.3.2.7, B3.8 and B2.3.4 for analysis of the risks associated with the current
arrangements. Market forces control the number of divers under current arrangements.
Although the fishery could potentially have 52 divers under the current minimum
shareholding, the numbers have not exceeded 42 since the gazettal of the share management
plan in 2000. Currently, the numbers of divers is at 42 and, as such, a proactive review of
management is appropriate.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-186
The advantage of continuing this arrangement is that there are no immediate administrative
costs of change. In addition, despite contrasting economic conditions in the fishery since the
gazettal of the share management plan in 2000 there have been no great fluctuations in the
numbers of divers. This suggests there is some stability in numbers and that they may not
continue to rise.
The risk in allowing the market to adjust the number of divers is that improved economic
viability may enable more divers to remain in the fishery than is desirable to maintain
productivity of the fishery.
C4.2.4 Alternatives for Controlling Illegal Fishing
The illegal catch of abalone is estimated to be about 40% of the TACC in 1997, which clearly
has a significant impact on the resource, particularly given that many of the illegally taken
abalone would be below the MLS and below reproductive size. Industry is limited in the
way it can prevent illegal harvest from outside the Industry, but it has contributed
significantly to the cost of compliance in an effort to reduce the illegal take.
There are alternatives for changing the way resources are allocated to compliance, and who
is to provide and pay for the service. Alternatives would affect the compliance rate in the
fishery and the size of the illegal catch. Allocating fewer resources to compliance would
likely reduce the compliance rate in the fishery and increase the illegal catch from
unlicensed operators. Allocating more resources to compliance would likely reduce the
illegal catch if the additional resources were used appropriately, but this would entail
additional cost to Government or the Industry. Clearly, there is a need to maintain a proper
balance between compliance, its costs and the benefits that flow from it; although this relies
on a measurement of compliance efficacy, which is very difficult to obtain. The draft FMS
proposes to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjusting the resources allocated to
compliance. Additional resources would be most effective if targeted at what is thought to
be the greatest source of illegal catch (i.e. theft by unlicensed operators) and possibly also at
buyers of illegally harvested abalone. Management responses are also proposed to reduce
the potential for registered abalone processors and wholesalers buying illegally harvested
abalone (Chapter D).
There is also a need to ensure that compliance within Industry is maintained and, wherever
possible, improved. A management response is proposed whereby commercial divers
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-187
report the planned location of their daily fishing activities. An alternative to this voluntary
approach could involve the use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS). The costs of using such
an expensive and complicated system may outweigh the compliance benefits. The more
cost-effective approach proposed in the draft FMS is to allow compliance access to the
existing reporting system between divers and processors used to co-ordinate the transport of
abalone from the dive area to the processing facility. Reporting would be made at a zone
level to allow some flexibility to divers in the area that they intend to work for the day.
Notwithstanding this approach, whilst VMSs are not considered to be an appropriate
alternative to voluntary reporting of positions at this stage, reporting mechanisms within the
draft FMS allow for this to be assessed as part of ongoing management.
Finally, the draft FMS proposes a fishery code of practice for operation within the
commercial fishery. There is potential within this code for a series of demerits or penalties
ultimately leading to forfeit of diving rights or shares. Alternatives could be specified in
terms of the severity of responses to operating outside the code. The draft FMS has
sufficient flexibility that changes to the code and its responses can be made during the life of
the FMS. Thus, it is not considered that alternatives to this approach are warranted.
C4.2.5 Alternative Stakeholder Involvement and Community Consultation
Communication within Industry (i.e. between shareholders, divers and processors) is
important to ensure that management arrangements for the fishery are adequate and carried
out appropriately. It is also important that Industry communicates with other stakeholders
in the fishery to avoid the potential for any negative impacts from the commercial fishery
occurring.
The alternatives for making communication effective are for the different sectors of Industry
and the various stakeholder groups to consult between each other on an individual basis or
to communicate together through Abalone Management Advisory Committee. ABMAC is a
statutory body and represents the most efficient and effective means by which
communication and consultation would occur. Recreational and Indigenous divers for
abalone, and conservationists (i.e. the Nature Conservation Council of NSW) have
representation on ABMAC. Proposals in the draft FMS provide for the commercial divers
and Indigenous groups on the south coast of NSW to have better representation. Based on
the success of these initiatives further measures may be introduced during the life of the
FMS, but at this stage no other alternatives are warranted.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-188
C4.3 Alternative Performance Indicators and Monitoring Programs
Performance indicators enable managers to measure the effectiveness of management
arrangements in the fishery. They track the status of the fishery relative to the goals and
objectives and in some cases relative to reference points that define acceptable limits for the
quantity being measured. At the broadest possible level, it is important that the draft FMS
defines a set of performance indicators, hence it is not considered an alternative that there be
no such indicators. Within each of the goals defined in Chapter D there are either specific
performance indicators proposed or a process is identified whereby indicators can be
developed in a timely manner.
In order to be effective, performance indicators need to have a trigger level, above or below
which there is a requirement for a review of the relevant management . Trigger levels are
often defined as a percentage change in a performance indicator and management responses
may range from a review of data to changes in the way abalone are collected, quotas, etc.
There is potential for an almost limitless number of performance indicators and trigger
levels that could be considered in the operation of the Abalone Fishery. In the remainder of
this section broad alternative indicators are identified for major aspects of the fishery.
C4.3.1 Performance Indicators for Collection and Delivery of Abalone
Chapter B identified a number of potential, albeit small, risks to the coastal environment
associated with the collection and delivery of abalone. These included damage to the reef
ecosystems and bycatch species. The performance of the fishery in relation to both these
aspects can be determined by the use of rigorous experimental studies and delivery of the
most unequivocal outcomes demands the best scientific approach. At this level there is no
appropriate alternative.
There are, however, alternatives regarding the specific ecosystem indicators used and the
timing and duration of studies. As a potential model, in the Victorian Abalone Fishery,
divers monitor ecosystem indicators including cover of macroalgae, abundance of predators,
cover of coralline algae, etc, and these would be considered for application in NSW. The
draft FMS proposes a framework by which the best scientific approach is used and
appropriate ecosystem indicators are selected. This continues the high standard of research
previously sponsored by the Industry and lesser alternatives are considered inappropriate.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-189
C4.3.2 Performance Indicators for Management
C4.3.2.1 Indicators for Sustainability of Stock
A detailed program of stock assessment has been the foundation of measuring performance
in terms of abalone biomass (SMP 2000). The draft FMS proposes that this be continued,
with some additional work to be initiated. The current program is based on detailed
knowledge of specific sampling sites, many of which have been closely monitored for a
considerable period of time. Alternatives that require for the methodology to be changed
are considered highly unsuitable because they would lack continuity. At best, there would
be a requirement for a transition stage to any different stock assessment approach, which
would probably require preliminary investigations early in the life of the FMS. It should
also be noted that the data obtained from the stock assessment program is used by the TAC
Committee to set quotas. This committee is independent and would no doubt recommend if
alternative measures of stock assessment were warranted (note that alternatives were
considered by Sainsbury (2000) in a review of the NSW Abalone Fishery). One possible
alternative would be to consider the potential of changing the frequency of the independent
surveys used for stock assessment. They are currently done annually but there is potential
for them to be done every two years. The independent surveys are an important tool in the
TACC setting process and the risk to this process of decreasing the frequency of surveys
needs to be considered under such an arrangement.
If the Abalone Fishery becomes managed more at a regional (or even zone) level (Section
C4.2.1), it may be feasible to develop performance indicators of management that differ
among regions to better reflect specific ecological conditions, trends in abalone populations,
variable effects of illegal harvesting or Perkinsus outbreaks, etc. This approach makes sense
in that it can allow fine-tuning of management responses to achieve the goals of the fishery.
It may also be cost effective because resources allocated for measuring some aspects of
performance may not need to be spread across the entire area of operation of the fishery.
Such alternatives, however, must be developed consistently with the management proposed
and will be best determined during the operation of the FMS. Therefore, it is considered
more appropriate to have a management plan that is flexible enough to enable indicators to
be developed on a regional basis than to prescribe specific approaches at this stage.
Notwithstanding this, since 2001, ABMAC has initiated a program of catch reporting at the
regional level, with the intention of extending this to the scale of sub-zones. Hence the
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-190
fishery already recognises the benefits of having some performance indicators applicable at
a finer scale than across the entire fishery.
One potential shortcoming of this approach that needs to be guarded against is the risk that
performance indicators will become so specialised at smaller scales that they lose their
ability to be compared directly across regions. Hence, at the state level, Industry will need
to ensure that key indicators are designed so that they can be evaluated across the whole
fishery. In addition, if the data requirements don’t fit the scale to which the performance
indicator is to be applied there is a risk of indicators being triggered incorrectly.
Two management responses regarding managing regional catch are to be considered for
inclusion in the FMS (Section C4.2.1), and the performance indicators would need to be
tuned to suit the purpose (eg appropriate trigger points on catch levels).
C4.3.2.2 Indicators for Provision of Management Services, Including Research & Monitoring
Performance indicators for the provision of services would focus on value for money, the
standard of the service and timeliness of supply and timeliness of responses to matters
arising. Clearly, the quality of management services is essential to the successful
management of the fishery. In the past, management services have been provided largely
through government, with ancillary services (e.g. TAC Committee) supported through
government. Apart from the IPART process, which focuses on economics, reviews have
generally been on a needs basis. One example of this is peer review of the standard of
science used for stock assessment for research publications (there is also an internal review
process with DPI for manuscripts prepared for publication). Another example is the ICAC
(Independent Commission Against Corruption) available through Government, but this
form of review would be triggered only following concerns raised about the governance of
the fishery. Finally, this EIS and the adaptive revision of the FMS represents, amongst many
other things, an indicator of management services currently provided and proposed.
There is scope to continually improve the indicators of management services. The draft FMS
proposes an independent review of management services, to be undertaken by a suitably
qualified reviewer with a frequency to be determined. The alternatives to this approach
would be to not have a formal review of management services, or to commission the review
either by DPI or the Abalone Fishery (e.g. through ABMAC). The proposed approach is
considered by far to be the most appropriate strategy because it can be seen to be
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-191
independent and to provide a co-ordinated view of the quality of the services provided to
the fishery. Furthermore, as the fishery moves towards outsourcing certain management
services, it will be even more important to ensure that these services are delivered at a high
standard.
C4.3.3 Performance Indicators of the Economic Viability of the Fishery
The draft FMS proposes four key performance indicators of economic viability, which
extend through the operation of the fishery. They include catch rates of abalone, beach
prices, total commercial catch (as a raw value and expressed as a percentage of the TACC)
and the cost of management (Section D4.2). Several alternative (or supplementary)
economic indicators are also available that can be applied to individual businesses within
the fishery, or to the fishery as a whole:
• Share price and number of shares traded. These have been used in the share
management plan but have recently been shown to not represent the economic
performance of the fishery adequately (Sections B1.4.1 and B3.5.2). Share price
reflects the cost of having a stake in the fishery and of the capital tied up in the
fishery (in addition to cost of boats and other operational costs). It is less responsive
to current operational circumstances and can reflect a range of expectations and
information. Although share values reflect capitalized prospective net returns, the
time horizons for monitoring economic performance are much longer than for net
returns from harvesting. Trades of shares are required as impartial measures of
value in the market, but can be infrequent when prices fall.
• Net returns to businesses. To understand net returns to businesses it is essential to
understand operating costs, revenue and profitability. It could be relatively
expensive and difficult, however, to acquire reliable information about net returns.
This alternative would require further development, costing and consultation before
to fully assess its suitability. The approach taken in the draft FMS is to monitor
information about the amount of revenue generated (i.e. as a consequence of beach
price and catch). Beach price and catch can change from year to year and as such are
likely to have a great bearing on the economic performance of the fishery and are
indicative of net returns. It is important to note that there is no current formal and
verifiable method of reporting.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-192
• Exchange rate. The majority of the commercial catch is sold overseas, thus the
exchange rate and the beach price can interact to affect the economic viability of the
fishery. The beach price, however, takes into account exchange rates and hence is
considered to be a more comprehensive indicator.
• The size of the TACC. The size of the TACC represents the amount of resource
accessible to the commercial sector in any one year and hence is indicative of
potential revenue. In some years, however, there is potential that the whole TACC
may not be caught. As such, it considered that the total commercial catch is a better
indicator of revenue. Other potential indices, such as the total harvestable biomass,
and the size of the illegal and recreational catch in relation to the TACC identify how
much of the resource is available to the commercial sector. Currently, there is some
uncertainty about the biomass and limited knowledge of the size of the illegal and
recreational catch, hence these are not considered to be appropriate alternative
indicators at this stage. Notwithstanding this, reliable statistics on the non-
commercial catch should be included as they become available.
C4.3.4 Performance Indicators for Compliance within the Abalone Fishery
Performance indicators are proposed in the draft FMS to assess compliance within the
fishery by commercial divers and operators. The Industry has very limited control over
compliance outside the commercial sector (other than, for example, by reporting illegal
divers that are seen by commercial divers; or processors who report non-commercial divers
trying to sell illegally harvested abalone). Notwithstanding this, the commercial fishery
contributes financially to compliance, hence as part of service delivery it expects that it be
informed, using appropriate measures (e.g. number of compliance operations, successful
prosecutions, etc) of the success of compliance outside the fishery. Such information is
provided to ABMAC meetings on a routine basis. In addition, a supplementary indicator of
the performance of compliance could be based on the cost of compliance compared to the
financial benefits to Industry of maintaining a contribution to compliance. Although the
information required for such an indicator (i.e. the reduction in illegal activity due to
compliance) is difficult to estimate, the potential is to be explored in the life of the FMS. On
this basis, it is not considered that other alternatives are appropriate for the draft FMS.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-193
C4.3.5 Performance Indicators of Stakeholder Involvement and Community Consultation
The draft FMS proposes stakeholder involvement and community consultation through a
fishery code of practice, ABMAC meetings (which have community representation) and port
meetings to be held with divers and DPI officers. The Abalone EIS and draft FMS are
available for public inspection and comment during the statutory period of exhibition.
Information from research and monitoring is also made available through scientific
publications and Industry members have made themselves available for media
presentations. Whilst there are other avenues available for dissemination of information,
these can be costly and the measures proposed with in the draft FMS, along with those
identified above are considered to be the most suitable approach.
C4.4 Alternative Arrangements for Cost Recovery or Funding Sources
C4.4.1 Alternative Arrangements for Cost Recovery
Cost recovery is currently administered through DPI which is empowered by the Fisheries
Management Act to obtain levies and fees from commercial operators for management costs.
Costs of management are derived from allocation and apportionment of indirect overhead
costs between fisheries. Direct costs for services are stated as part of each managed fishery’s
budget process. In 1998, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) was
asked to investigate the cost to DPI of managing the commercial fisheries in NSW, including
how management charges should be shared between the commercial sector and the
community (i.e. due to the recreational catch). The draft FMS proposes an independent
review of the current application of the arrangements for cost recovery.
With development of cost recovery, one alternative is for those shareholders in the levy base
to examine the option of collecting levies among shareholders through a group entity. The
entity can then negotiate with government and other service providers for services that are
contestable, in the hope of reducing cost or increasing services from the available budget.
Such an initiative requires legal support for the agreed management entity to impose levies
on Industry members and would be evaluated.
Another alternative for cost-recovery, as occurs in the Tasmanian Abalone Fishery, would be
to link the fees paid by shareholders for the management of the fishery to the average beach
price. This would reduce the potential risk to shareholders of an economic burden of fees at
times when revenue was reduced (i.e. beach price and/or TACC is low) and extra money
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-194
would be available to provide extra resources to the fishery at times when revenue was
increased. For example, extra compliance officers may be beneficial at times when the value
of abalone is great as there may be an increase in illegal activity. Further, illegal activity may
decline at times when the value of abalone is reduced and, therefore, resources allocated to
compliance could be reduced. Although this form of cost recovery may be appropriate for
large abalone fisheries because they generate considerable revenue, (e.g. the Tasmanian
Abalone Fishery) it may not be suitable for a smaller fishery such as operates in NSW. For
example, there is a risk that at times when beach price is down the revenue generated for
management of the Abalone Fishery may be inadequate funding for some of the basic
administrative, research and compliance services. This risk could be reduced, however,
with the use of a sinking fund that provided for storage of money at times when revenue
was high for use in years when revenue was down. Such alternatives will be evaluated
during the life of the FMS.
C4.4.2 Sources for Research Programs
There are a number of sources of funding for implementing proposed research programs
• DPI. DPI fully-fund or contribute to many research programs associated with
commercial fisheries. Under the policy of full cost recovery for category 1 share
managed fisheries, however, the Abalone Fishery would receive limited financial
support from DPI for future programs.
• Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC). The FRDC is a national
body that funds fisheries research and development. The FRDC obtains money by
levying commercial fishers all over Australia which is in turn matched by
government funding. The money is used to fund research and development needs in
commercial fisheries, including the Abalone Fishery. Funding from FRDC is very
competitive.
• Universities. Universities have some potential for contributing to research needs in
commercial fisheries. They also, however, depend on government funding bodies to
support their research and must apply for funding on a competitive basis.
• Industry. The abalone industry continues to offer financial support for research and
monitoring in the fishery. As a large proportion of the research budget is allocated to
stock assessment it is difficult for Industry to finance other research programs.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-195
It is not possible to rely completely on any one of the above sources to fund research and
development programs for the fishery. As such, the approach taken in the draft FMS, as has
been the approach used in the past, is to continue to explore ways of obtaining funding from
a number of sources.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page C-196
C5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has discussed a range of alternatives to the way in which the Abalone Fishery
would operate under the draft FMS. It also discusses some of the consequences of not
having a commercial fishery for abalone, of continuing the existing management
arrangements and of having an instrument of management other than an FMS. It is essential
to recognise that the FMS needs to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes within
and outside the fishery as they emerge. This flexibility extends to a range of alternative
management approaches which could be evaluated during the implementation of the FMS
and incorporated as required. The current structure of review, including ABMAC and the
TAC Committee, along with a proposal for independent reviews of management, should
ensure that only the most suitable management responses are triggered as required.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-197
CHAPTER D THE DRAFT FISHERY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ABALONE FISHERY This chapter presents the draft Fisheries Management Strategy (FMS), which describes how the
commercial Abalone Fishery would operate in New South Wales. Chapters B and C describe the
current operation of the fishery and present broad alternatives for the fishery, ranging from having no
commercial fishery to various components of how the fishery could operate. Whilst Chapter D is
presented within the framework of the EIS, it is also a requirement that the draft FMS be available as
a stand-alone document, hence it contains some background information, with extensive cross-
referencing to other parts of the EIS.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-198
D1.0 INTRODUCTION
D1.1 Background
The harvesting of abalone from rocky reefs forms the basis of important commercial,
Indigenous and recreational fisheries in temperate regions in many parts of the world. In
Australia, abalone fisheries exist in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia
and the southern section of Western Australia. The abalone is a gastropod mollusc
belonging to the Family Haliotidae. In NSW, blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra, forms the basis
of the fishery. This species also occurs in the other southern states of Australia.
Abalone occur in relatively shallow coastal waters and are typically collected by divers
using either snorkel, surface-supplied air or scuba. They have been harvested commercially
in NSW since at least the 1950’s and the fishery is now the 3rd most valuable in NSW. Both
DPI and the commercial abalone divers have long recognised the need to manage the stocks
of abalone in NSW waters in a sustainable way. Thus, in 1980 the fishery became the first
restricted fishery in NSW, with entry based on past participation. Fifty-nine permits were
initially issued, 57 of which were based on catch history and two of which were allocated to
Indigenous persons. The Abalone Fishery in NSW has a strong history of management,
much of which has been initiated by the divers in close collaboration with the NSW
Government. This has included restrictions on the numbers of divers, increasing of size
limits, an industry funded buy-back scheme, area and time closures and implementation of a
quota system. These conservation measures have been supported with Industry funding for
research and compliance. In 1995 the fishery was included in Schedule 1 of the Fisheries
Management Act 1994 (the Act) as a share management fishery. In 1996, the 37 divers in the
previous restricted fishery were granted 100 equal shares on a provisional basis with quota
allocated in proportion to shareholdings.
In February 2000, final shares were issued under the share management plan for abalone
(SMP 2000) established under the Act. Annual quotas are set by the Total Allowable Catch
Setting and Review Committee (TAC Committee) established under the Act.
In addition to controls on the commercial fishery, collection of abalone by recreational divers
is subject to bag and size limits, and recently has been restricted to collection without the use
of surface supplied air or scuba. There are also several marine protected areas along the
NSW coast where abalone cannot be harvested, either commercially or recreationally.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-199
Management of the recreational or Indigenous fisheries does not form part of the FMS.
There is nevertheless a need to recognise that the sustainability of the fishery is affected not
only by commercial harvesting, but also by recreational, Indigenous and illegal fishers.
In recent years it has been determined that there is a requirement, under Part 5 of the NSW
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to undertake environmental impact
assessments of fisheries in NSW. The legislation requires the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the effects of each designated fishing
activity, including the Abalone Fishery, on the environment. The assessment is based on an
analysis of a draft fishery management strategy (FMS), which describes the rules,
regulations and programs that are in place or proposed to manage the fishery into the
future.
According to guidelines issued by The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural
Resources (DIPNR) an FMS is a document: “... outlining the management goals, objectives,
controls and other measures for achieving the objectives, performance indicators and
monitoring programmes applying to a particular commercial designated fishing activity.
The strategy must contain the ‘management tools’ applying to the commercial fishery, as
well as data collection protocols and triggers for the review of the strategy” (DIPNR 2003).
The guidelines also note that the strategy should be an informative document detailing the
future vision for the management of the particular designated fishing activity – including:
• short, mid and long term vision for the fishery;
• regulatory controls, management arrangements and other measures for achieving the
vision including setting target effort or fishing capacity of each fishery and any
restructuring programme;
• the framework for providing fisheries and other stakeholders with greater certainty
about the rules and administrative arrangements applying to the fishery;
• an information resource for the endorsement holders as well as the broader community
on a particular fishery (DIPNR 2003).
This FMS for the Abalone Fishery seeks to continue and where necessary adapt the
developments initiated in past management arrangements, particularly the share
management plan. The management objectives in the share management plan for the
Abalone Fishery have been adapted in this management strategy and developed as eight
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-200
broad goals, with a set of underlying objectives and applicable management responses
contributing to the overall vision of the fishery. Section 2 of the FMS provides a concise
description of the fishery. A more detailed description is provided in the EIS (Section B).
Section 2 also describes the risks identified in the EIS that affect the operation of the fishery
and how they are being addressed by the FMS. Section 3 presents the goals and objectives to
be achieved through management of the fishery. Section 4 describes measures to evaluate
the performance of the management strategy, including monitoring programs, research and
communication of results to stakeholders. The FMS builds on those that have been
developed for other commercial fisheries in NSW that have been through the assessment
and consultative process.
The Abalone Fishery currently faces a number of major challenges that could affect the
sustainability and viability of the fishery over the long term. These challenges include a
variety of internal and external factors (Section D2.3), which are being addressed in this
FMS, such as:
• recent decline in stock, including major declines in some areas and natural fluctuations
in stocks;
• the Perkinsus parasite affecting stocks in Region 1 and its potential movement further
south;
• the persistence of illegal fishing and uncertainty about the scale of this activity;
• increasing coastal development and resulting impacts on the environment including
water quality and the potential impacts of aquaculture;
• the concentration of fishing effort in Regions 5 and 6 and the risk of increasing fishing
effort; and
• Indigenous interests/claims over access to the resource.
Industry is committed to working with government agencies and other users of the abalone
resource to rebuild and maintain a sustainable and viable fishery. For the commercial
sector, the FMS proposes the actions that will be taken to achieve this outcome.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-201
D1.2 Relevant Legislation and Policy
D1.2.1 The Fisheries Management Act
The Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) seeks to achieve ecologically sustainable
development for the fisheries of NSW through the achievement of its stated objectives,
which are:
(1) To conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of the State for the benefit of present and
future generations.
(2) In particular the objects of the Act include:
(a) to conserve fish stocks and key fish habitats;
(b) to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine
vegetation; and
(c) to promote ecologically sustainable development, including the conservation of biological
diversity;
and, consistent with those objects:
(d) to promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries;
(e) to promote quality recreational fishing opportunities;,
(f) to appropriately share fisheries resources between the users of those resources; and
(g) to provide social and economic benefits for the wider community of New South Wales.
In meeting these objectives, Division 4 of Part 2 of the FM Act establishes a Total Allowable
Catch Setting and Review Committee (TAC Committee) to determine a specified total
allowable catch for the Abalone Fishery, as required by the Abalone Share Management
Plan. In determining the Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC), the TAC Committee is
required to consider all relevant scientific, Industry, community, social and economic factors
impacting on the resource. In addition, Section 30 of the FM Act requires:
(2) The TAC Committee is also to have regard for:
a) the need to ensure the exploitation of fisheries resources is conducted in a manner that will
conserve fish stocks in the long term;
b) the impact of fishing activities on all species of fish and aquatic environment; and
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-202
c) the precautionary principle, namely, that if there are threats or serious or irreversible damage
to fish stocks, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures
to prevent that damage.
D1.2.2 Ecologically Sustainable Development
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) was defined under the National Strategy for
ESD as “development that improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a
way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends”. It can be achieved
through the implementation of the following principles and programs1:
• precautionary principle – if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental
damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation;
• intra-generational equity – the benefits and costs of pursuing ESD strategies should
be distributed as evenly as practicable within each generation;
• inter-generational equity – the present generation should ensure that the health,
diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the
benefit of future generations;
• conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity – conservation of
biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration;
and
• improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms – such as user pays and the
use of incentive structures to promote efficiency in achieving environmental goals.
D1.2.3 Share Management Plans
The FM Act requires that a share management plan be developed and implemented for all
share management fisheries. The primary role of a share management plan is to provide the
legislative framework for the fishery and the rights of shareholders in a share management
fishery. The share management plan provides a range of fishery specific controls in the form
of a regulation. Examples of these include the species that may be taken, the areas for taking
1 Adapted from section 6 (2) of the NSW Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-203
fish, and the use of boats and fishing gear. If the Fisheries Management (Share Management
Plan) Regulation 2000 is inconsistent with any other regulation or fishing closure, the Fisheries
Management (Share Management Plan) Regulation 2000 prevails. The only occasions where the
Fisheries Management (Share Management Plan) Regulation 2000 does not prevail over another
regulation, are where the regulation specifically expresses that it is to have effect despite the
share management plan or where the share management plan specifies that other controls
apply.
The Abalone Share Management Plan containing the Fisheries Management (Share
Management Plan) Regulation 2000 commenced in 2000. The share management plan for the
Abalone Fishery will continue to apply subject to any amendments made to give effect to
modified or new fishing regulatory controls that are needed as a result of this management
strategy. The share management plan will be revised following the development of the FMS
for the Abalone Fishery and its environmental assessment.
D1.2.4 The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
Division 5 of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)
requires an environmental impact statement (EIS) to be prepared for each designated fishing
activity described in Schedule 1A of the FM Act, for the purposes of an environmental
assessment. The DIPNR has issued guidelines for the various fisheries, including guidelines
for the Abalone Fishery, that outline the matters required to be covered in the EIS.
Prior to the environmental impact statement being prepared, a FMS must be prepared under
the FM Act. The environmental impact statement assesses the likely impact of implementing
the FMS on the biophysical, economic and social environments.
Once a management strategy and environmental impact statement have been prepared and
subject to a determination by the Minister for Primary Industries (under s.115O(4) of the
EP&A Act), the requirement to undertake an environmental assessment for each individual
fisher’s licence approval or renewal does not apply.
D1.2.5 The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) makes it an
offence for a person to undertake an action that has the potential to significantly impact on a
matter of ‘national environmental significance’ without first obtaining a permit from the
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-204
Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage. Matters of national environmental
significance include: declared World Heritage areas; declared Ramsar wetlands; listed
threatened species and ecological communities; listed migratory species; listed marine
species; nuclear actions; and the environment of Commonwealth marine areas.
The EPBC Act was amended in January 2002 to incorporate the provisions of the Wildlife
Protection Act (which was repealed at the same time). The new Part 13A of the EPBC Act
removes the previous blanket exemption from export control for marine species. As a result,
the export of all marine organisms will come under the controls of the EPBC Act and be
subject to ecological sustainability assessments based on guidelines established by the
Commonwealth. To give time in which those assessments may be made, the exemption will
continue until 1 December 2005. Until then, current arrangements regarding the export of
marine species will remain in effect, that is, the export of most marine fish and the bulk of
marine invertebrates will continue to be exempt from export controls under the Act.
If a fishery is not assessed as exempt, it will more than likely be able to continue to supply
product for export through an approved wildlife trade operation (Section 303FN) under the
EPBC Act. These declarations will have conditions attached that will bring the management
and operations of the fishery in line with the Commonwealth guidelines. Once declarations
are made, exporters will need to apply for and obtain from Environment Australia a permit
to export.
D1.2.6 The NSW Marine Parks Act
The NSW Government is using a systematic approach to identify sites for marine protected
areas and to prioritise new areas for marine biodiversity conservation in NSW waters. There
are three types of marine protected areas in NSW - large multiple-use marine parks, small
aquatic reserves and the marine and estuarine components of national parks and nature
reserves.
Marine Parks aim to conserve biodiversity by protecting representative samples of the
habitats in defined ‘bioregions’. Zoning and operational plans are used to guide the
protection of conservation values and manage activities that occur within the marine park.
Four zones are used in marine parks - sanctuary zones, habitat protection zones, general use
zones and special purpose zones.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-205
Consultation occurs with the community prior to the declaration of marine parks. It is also
important that the Abalone Management Advisory Committee participates in the
consultation over the selection of marine protected areas, as declaration of such areas can be
beneficial to all sectors of the community, including the commercial fishing sector.
However, such declarations can also impact on the operations of commercial abalone divers.
The Marine Parks Act 1997 was introduced to provide for the declaration of marine parks in
NSW. The objects of the Act are as follows:
(a) to conserve marine biological diversity and marine habitats by declaring and providing for the
management of a comprehensive system of marine parks;
(b) to maintain ecological processes in marine parks; and
(c) where consistent with the preceding objects:
(i) to provide for ecologically sustainable use of fish (including commercial and recreational
fishing) and marine vegetation in marine parks; and
(ii) to provide opportunities for public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of marine
parks.
This FMS has been prepared taking into account, and ensuring consistency with, the objects
of the Marine Parks Act 1997.
Up to date information on the creation and zoning of marine parks in NSW waters is
available on the Marine Parks Authority website (www.mpa.nsw.gov.au).
D1.2.7 Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan
Fishing has been an integral part of the cultural and economic life of Aboriginal
communities since they have been in this land. Fishing has been an important source of
food, a basis for trade and an important part of cultural and ceremonial life. Traditionally,
Aboriginal fishers had responsibility for providing not just for themselves but for family and
community. These cultural expectations continue in Aboriginal communities today.
In December 2002, the NSW Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan (IFS)
was released. The IFS, which is detailed in the Appendices of the EIS, seeks to protect and
enhance the traditional cultural fishing activities of Aboriginal communities, and ensure
Aboriginal involvement in the stewardship of fisheries resources. There are some issues that
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-206
will be addressed immediately by the IFS and others that can be resolved only after lengthy
negotiation involving Aboriginal communities, the broader community, fishing groups and
government agencies. The IFS establishes a process which will ensure discussion and
negotiation can continue with progressive resolution of problems and challenges (see NSW
Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan 2002).
To better understand the linkages between fishing activities and Indigenous issues, a
substantial research study has been proposed through the IFS which seeks, among other
things, to identify the species, areas and harvesting techniques of cultural importance to
Aboriginal people in NSW.
D1.2.8 Consideration of Alternative Governance Arrangements
The NSW Government’s Vision for the NSW Seafood Industry (December 2003) includes
commitments to undertake a feasibility study to assess alternative fishery management
models involving greater industry responsibility, with (a) an initial focus on the commercial
abalone fishery; and (b) to publish a discussion paper on an alternative fishery management
model for the whole catching sector.
A feasibility study was funded jointly by DPI and the Abalone Development Company,
overseen by an Industry/Government working group and prepared by Marsden Jacob
(2004). The study identified the potential to assign greater responsibilities to Industry for
delivery of key services and decisions on harvest strategies, within the context of
government continuing to fulfil its responsibilities for the sustainable and equitable sharing
of fisheries resources. The study also identified a range of matters that need to be addressed
in order to progress the initiative. The FMS will be responsive to the final outcomes of this
initiative.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-207
D2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE DESIGNATED FISHING ACTIVITY
This section provides an overview of the fishing activity sufficient to place the management
responses into an appropriate context. A more detailed description, including reference to
scientific studies, is provided in Chapter B of the EIS for the Abalone Fishery.
D2.1 Collection of Abalone and Characteristics of the Stock
The abalone stock is based on collection of a single species, the blacklip abalone, Haliotis
rubra. As detailed in Chapter B, the operation of the Abalone Fishery involves a relatively
small amount of equipment but requires considerable efficiency to ensure that the abalone
collected for sale are kept alive and in good condition. The key elements of the fishery
include the use of:
• a fast, seaworthy boat that can be transported to launching points by trailer;
• breathing apparatus to enable divers to remain submerged for long periods and
hence most efficiently seek out and collect abalone;
• a hand-held ‘abalone iron’ to remove abalone from rock surfaces;
• holding tanks on boats to maintain abalone once collected;
• communications to enable divers and processors to meet at landing points and then
to weigh and transfer the catch in preparation for sale.
Table D1 summarises the known status and level of certainty for the following stock
assessment and biological parameters for black lip abalone in NSW. The stock is currently
considered to be ‘fully fished’. In recent times the TAC Committee has recognised the
vulnerability of the stock to sequential depletion under a single Total Allowable Catch
(TACC) for the whole fishery and has advocated management of the stock at smaller spatial
scales (TAC Committee 2004).
(i) Geographical and depth distribution and stock structure
Blacklip abalone are endemic to Australian waters and found on rocky reefs from the
NSW/Queensland border to the southern fringes of the southern states of Australia. In
NSW, abalone are most abundant on the far south coast while in areas further north they
become progressively less abundant and more patchily distributed. Few abalone occur
north of Coffs Harbour. Abalone are or have been found on coastal rocky reefs throughout
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-208
NSW, most commonly from the inter-tidal to depths of up to 40 m, although they can be
found as deep as 100 m. Most abalone live in cracks and fissures in rock within beds of
macroalgae. Abalone are gregarious and the distribution of their preferred habitats is
patchy, so individuals are aggregated at a range of spatial scales. Whilst there is little
distinct genetic variation among populations, there is considerable spatial structure to
abalone populations so that abalone separated by relatively small distances (e.g. hundreds of
m to km) can be reproductively isolated to some extent (Prince et al. 1988). The
consequences of this spatial structure are considered in detail within the EIS (Chapters B and
E).
Table D1: Overview of characteristics of the stock of abalone in NSW.
Characteristic Description Level of Certainty
Geographical distribution State-wide, but abundance increases in the south
High
Depth distribution Intertidal to ~100 m, but most common between 0 - 40 m
High
Stock Structure The total stock is made up of many smaller populations
Moderate
Spawning season Early spring to late autumn High
Spawning areas Throughout depth and geographical distribution
Moderate
Relationship between stock and recruitment
Strong relationship between recruitment and biomass of parent stock
Moderate
Movement, migration and larval dispersal
Limited movement of juveniles and adults; no migration; short distance of larval dispersal
Moderate
Minimum legal size 115 mm High
Average age at minimum legal size 5 - 6 years Moderate
Maximum age ~20 - 30 years Low
Average age of abalone in commercial catch
5 - 8 years Moderate
Average size at maturity 90 – 100 mm Moderate
Average age at maturity 3 - 6 years Moderate
Average number of years at maturity before reaching minimum legal size
2 - 5 years Moderate
Average natural mortality, M M = 0.2 – 0.4 for adults Moderate
Average fishing mortality, F F = 0.1 – 0.5 for adults Low
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-209
(ii) Spawning season, spawning areas and stock-recruitment relationship
Blacklip abalone are dioecious and spawn throughout their distribution during a prolonged
season from early spring to autumn, with peaks in early spring and late summer. Research
programs indicate a high level of certainty for this information. There appears to be some
synchronicity to spawning, suggesting the influence of local environmental conditions.
Abalone spawn throughout their distribution. The short dispersal of larvae, and the fact
that post-larvae, juveniles and adults all occur in the same habitat, suggest local recruitment
is dependent on the proximity of adults (Prince et al. 1987), although other factors operating
during the early life-history of abalone are thought to reduce any direct relationship
between the adult stock and recruits. The stock recruitment relationship is probably tighter
than many fish species, which often migrate to and from spawning areas and nursery
habitat.
(iii) Movement and migration
Although abalone are able to move over short distances (i.e. 10-100 m) within days,
movement of post-settlement abalone is generally limited and there is no migration (Officer
et al. 2001). Thus post-settlement abalone tend to spend all their lives within a small area of
reef. Dispersal of larvae may also be limited and is thought to be confined to only a short
distance from parents (Prince et al. 1987).
(iv) Age and growth
Growth of abalone is highly variable in terms of rates of growth and maximum size.
Variability is thought to be related to environmental conditions, such as the availability of
food and exposure (Day and Fleming 1992). The time it takes for abalone to reach legal size
varies and can be as little as 5 years if conditions are good, but at some sites with poor
conditions, growth may slow and individuals become stunted with few ever reaching the
legal size. On average, abalone from 115 mm increase in size at about 5 mm per year
(Worthington et al. 1995, Worthington and Andrew 1997). Limited information about the
age of abalone is available from NSW as the age of abalone is not easily determined.
Information from southern states, however, suggests abalone there may live for about 20 - 30
years (Day and Fleming 1992), but specific studies on longevity of abalone in NSW have not
been done.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-210
(v) Size and age at maturity
In the wild, abalone start to mature at about 80 mm, with 50% becoming mature by 90-100
mm, and all mature by 110 mm. In terms of age, this corresponds to most being mature in
their 4th-5th year.
(vi) Natural mortality and fishing mortality
Information from NSW and other states suggests natural mortality varies greatly. Variation
is related to the size of abalone but natural mortality also varies among places. Natural
mortality is thought to be greater than 1.0 for small individuals but declines as individuals
grow, so that M ~0.3 for adults (Shepherd and Breen 1992, Worthington and Andrew 1997).
Stock assessment models are generally very sensitive to variation in estimates of natural
mortality. Model-based estimates of fishing mortality, F are very sensitive to estimates of
natural mortality M, so probably vary from F = 0.1-0.5 (i.e. high M related to high F).
Confidence associated with estimates of natural and fishing mortality is considered to be
moderate and sensitivity to variation in these is considered in the EIS.
The MLS is set above the maximum size attained for becoming mature. Moreover, the MLS
ensures that virtually all abalone have had the opportunity to spawn at least twice (and up
to five times) before they are subject to legal harvesting.
D2.2 Operation of the Fishery
D2.2.1 Operational Areas, Protected and Closed Areas
The area of operation of the fishery as defined in the FMS is unmodified from that which
occurs under the current operation (Figure D1), which is described in detail in Section B1 in
the EIS. The scale of subzones in the fishery to which the commercial catch is reported to is
shown in Appendix B2.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-211
Figure D1. NSW coast, showing abalone assessment regions 1-6, marine parks (dark grey) and aquatic reserves (*) where abalone harvesting is not permitted and the current general closure to the taking of abalone (light grey). NB. Some commercial fishers are allowed to take abalone in the Region 1 closure under a Section 37 Research Permit (Refer to Appendix B1 of the EIS for an updated list of closures).
VICTORIAGabo Island
Clarence River
Newcastle
Ulladulla
Bermagui
Eden
Coffs Harbour
Cape Howe
Green CapeEden Wharf
Mimosa Rocks
Tuross Lake
Wreck Bay
Tweed Heads
Region 2
Region 1
Region 3
Region 4Region 5Region 6
Cook Islands*
Cape ByronMarine Park
Solitary IslandsMarine Park
Fly PointHalifax Park*
Long Reef*Cabbage Tree Bay*Towra Point*Ship Rock*
Bushrangers Bay*
Jervis Bay Marine Park
Julian Rocks*
VICTORIAGabo Island
Clarence River
Newcastle
Ulladulla
Bermagui
Eden
Coffs Harbour
Cape Howe
Green CapeEden Wharf
Mimosa Rocks
Tuross Lake
Wreck Bay
Tweed Heads
Region 2
Region 1
Region 3
Region 4Region 5Region 6
Cook Islands*
Cape ByronMarine Park
Solitary IslandsMarine Park
Fly PointHalifax Park*
Long Reef*Cabbage Tree Bay*Towra Point*Ship Rock*
Bushrangers Bay*
Jervis Bay Marine Park
Julian Rocks*
Montague Is
Broughton Is
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-212
D2.2.2 Controls Under the Abalone Share Management Plan
The share management plan regulates many aspects of the operation of the fishery.
Examples include the following:
• Dealings in shares - outlines the shareholding rights, registration and trading
arrangements in the fishery;
• Endorsements and nominated fishers - outlines arrangements for nominating fishers
and cancellation of endorsements;
• Total allowable catch and quota allocation; and
• Provisions relating to crew, boats, records and other matters.
As part of this management strategy some additions and amendments to regulations in the
share management plan have been developed (Section D3). These will be implemented
upon revision of the share management plan. Further details can be seen in the Part 4 of the
Fisheries Management (Abalone Share Management Plan) Regulation 2000 (Appendix B3 of the
EIS).
D2.2.3 Enforcement and Compliance
DPI Field Services aims to provide protection and ensure long term sustainability of the
abalone resource by utilising advisory and enforcement programs consistent with the
management arrangements for the fishery. DPI Field Services strategies include:
• Maximising voluntary compliance;
• Providing effective deterrence; and
• Effective support services.
The Strategic Plan for Abalone Compliance is also in place and has the specific objectives to:
a) Maintain or increase the biomass of mature and legal sized abalone (i.e. abalone that are
not a prohibited size, as specified in Clause 7 of the Fisheries Management (General) Regulation
1995)”. This involves attendance of Fisheries Officers at MAC meetings, liaison with
stakeholders to discuss concerns and trends and ensure information is given to the TAC
committee
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-213
b) Minimise the number of offences committed by divers and abalone processors. This is
ensured by: maintaining dedicated officers in the Fisheries Investigation Unit identified
through program budgeting tasked with abalone compliance duties; overt patrol of coastal
waters targeting recreational and commercial and illegal diving activities; intelligence
gathering and analysis; implementation of the National Docketing System; and extended
abalone compliance patrols targeting organised abalone thieving operations leading to
prosecution of persons involved in the theft and illegal trade in abalone. These processes are
coupled with continued public awareness programs through information packages and
advisory functions.
The compliance plan is re-evaluated annually as part of performance monitoring of the
share management plan.
A number of new initiatives for improving compliance are proposed as part of the FMS. For
example, processors will be required to record the number of abalone handled (in addition
to weight) and will be issued with temporary bans if caught in possession of abalone
without the appropriate documentation. Some of these initiatives are to be implemented
within a specific time, others on revision of the share management plan. Performance
indicators for compliance have also been refined as part of this management strategy in
order to better understand whether objectives are being achieved.
D2.2.4 Fees, Charges, Cost Recovery and Community Contribution Payments
Under the NSW Government’s policy on cost recovery, abalone shareholders are required to
pay their attributed costs of managing the fishery and to make a community contribution for
exploiting the resource. Management charges including research and compliance are
calculated based on the broad pricing principles recommended by the Independent Pricing
and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART 1998). The fishery is managed to ensure that the
management charge does not increase significantly (greater than Consumer Price Index),
excluding any increase for the provision of additional services by DPI as requested by the
ABMAC.
The subsidy provided by the DPI with respect to the benefits of managing the abalone
fishery to recreational fishing has been increased from 4% to 14%, in light of recent changes
in the estimated proportions of commercial and recreational catch. The FMS contains a
number of new services that will have budgetary implications.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-214
The community contribution charge calculation method was changed in 2005. It is
calculated as a percentage of gross revenue per share however the percentage will vary on a
sliding scale in accordance with a CPI adjusted average annual beach price (AABP).
For example:
• if the AABP is below $43/kg the percentage rate will be 0% (i.e. no charge will be
payable);
• for an AABP between $43 and $52/kg the rate will increase by 0.5% per dollar to 5%
of the revenue at $52;
• for beach prices from $52 to $62 the rate will increase by 1% per dollar to 15% of
revenue at $62; and
• above $62/kg the rate will remain at 15%.
To take into account the impact of any significant changes in the Total Allowable Catch
(TAC) on industry profitability, threshold points relating to the sliding scale will be adjusted
as follows:
• If the TAC decreases by less than 10%, the thresholds remain unchanged;
• If the TAC decreases by 10% or more, all thresholds for calculating the charge
in the year affected increase by $1 for each 10% decrease in TAC;
Note that a TAC decrease will be rounded to the nearest 10% to calculate the increase in the
threshold:
• If TAC reductions in any one year increase the thresholds by $2 or more, the
thresholds for each subsequent year will increase by half the amount of the
immediately preceding years adjustment for that TAC change, rounded to the
nearest whole dollar;
• If the TAC increases, the threshold levels will be reduced by the same amount
as thresholds are increased when the TAC decreases, with some exceptions as
follows;
• If a TAC adjustment wholly or partly reverses an adjustment which applied in
the previous year, the thresholds for the latest year will be set at the level that
would have applied if the net TAC change had all occurred in that year; and
• If more than one adjustment in the same direction applies in any one year, the
final adjustment for that year will be the total of all the adjustments that apply.
Shareholders also pay a number of other specific fees such preparation fees for the FMS and
EIS for the Abalone Fishery, quota transfer, share transfer/mortgage fees, Voluntary
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-215
Association (now the Abalone Development Company, ADC) fees and application fees for
crew registration.
This management strategy does not in itself set the management fee or limit, or otherwise
govern the way fees are charged.
D2.2.5 Fishing Closures
The Fisheries Management Act 1994 provides for the use of fishing closures in the Abalone
Fishery to, among other things, manage the amount of fishing effort in a sensitive
area/region, manage conflicts between stakeholders over the use of the resource and to
ensure it is equitably shared, and to prevent the spread of marine pests or diseases (e.g.
Perkinsus). While most closures are implemented under section 8 of the Act, other
regulations such as marine parks and aquatic reserves can have the same effect of regulating
how abalone fishing is undertaken in specific areas (e.g. Bouddi National Park, Bushrangers
Bay, and some areas of Jervis Bay Marine Park).
Fishing closures can be established on a seasonal, time, area, operator or gear-specific basis.
Fishing closures are required to be published in the NSW Government Gazette, however, if
the Minister for Primary Industries considers that a fishing closure is required urgently, the
Minister may introduce the closure and advise the public through media outlets and by
displaying prominent signs in areas adjacent to the waters affected. In the case of an urgent
closure, the Minister is to publish the closure in the Government Gazette as soon as
practicable.
Details on up-to-date fishing closures that may apply to the Abalone Fishery can be found
on the DPI website (www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au).
D2.2.6 Bycatch and Threatened Species
Abalone are individually gathered by hand, hence it is a target-specific fishery, with
virtually no incidental catches (bycatch) of other species. The shells of abalone, however,
can be colonised by commensal organisms which include invertebrates such as chitons and
limpets, sponges, boring annelids and algae. These organisms are harvested together with
the abalone on which they reside, and may therefore be considered as a limited bycatch, and
although they have no commercial value they may be of value to the ecological system. As
part of the proposed research on potential ecosystem effects of the fishery, there would be an
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-216
assessment of the bycatch associated with abalone. Subject to the results of this research, the
code of practice (abalone fishing) (Appendix B4 of the EIS) would implement a bycatch
removal strategy.
There are several threatened species that occur within habitats near where abalone are
harvested. One example is the eastern population of the grey nurse shark, Carcharias taurus,
for which a recovery plan has been prepared by DPI. The risk of the commercial fishery for
abalone interfering with threatened species is minor and no specific measures are warranted
at this point in time to manage potential interactions. However, the FMS includes a
response to facilitate reports of sightings of endangered or vulnerable species and
introduced pests, such as the Japanese Sea Star, by divers (Management Response 1.1b).
Industry has met with researchers to enable abalone divers to identify such pests and alert
the relevant authority. The Abalone Council Australia Ltd, a formal body set up to promote
and help safeguard the abalone industry of Australia, supports such initiatives and terms
this diver-awareness as “sentinels of the deep”.
D2.2.7 Provision for Consultation & Participation by Stakeholders in Management
There is a range of consultative bodies established in NSW to assist and advise the Minister
and DPI on fisheries issues. There are committees established to provide advice on specific
issues as well as bodies to advise on matters which cut across different fisheries or sectors.
In particular, there are three committees that have a very significant input into the operation
of the abalone fishery and these would continue under future management of the fishery.
These committees are detailed below.
D2.2.7.1 Management Advisory Committee
Management Advisory Committees (MACs) have been established for each commercial
fishery in NSW under Section 230 of the FM Act 1994. They provide advice to the Minister
for Primary Industries regarding the management of each fishery. Initially, consultation
between government and Industry was achieved through the United Abalone Divers
Association, which remained a cohesive group until 1990. In 1989, the first Abalone
Management Advisory Committee (ABMAC) was established. MACs provide a forum for
discussion, negotiation and conflict resolution in each fishery. The desired outcome of the
MAC process includes production of a management plan that clearly defines the rules and
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-217
actions required to ensure ecologically sustainable development of fisheries resources in
NSW.
MACs comprise an independent chairperson, elected Industry and non-Industry members
appointed by the Minister to represent other interest groups such as Indigenous, recreational
fishers, conservation groups and DPI. Other Industry and departmental observers may also
attend MAC meetings. Departmental staff attend to provide expertise on fisheries
management, research, conservation and compliance considerations. The MACs are the
Department’s main point of contact with each fishery, providing a forum where issues
relating to a fishery can be discussed, problems identified and solutions developed. The
functions of a fishery MAC are:
• to advise the Minister on the preparation of any management plan or regulations for the
fishery;
• to monitor whether the objectives of the management plan or regulations are being
achieved;
• to assist in a fishery review in connection with any new management plan or
regulations;
• to advise on any other matter relating to the fishery.
D2.2.7.2 Ministerial Advisory Councils
Two ministerial advisory councils are currently established under the Fisheries Management
Act 1994. The councils provide advice on matters referred to them by the Minister for
Primary Industries, or on any other matters the councils consider relevant. They report
directly to the Minister.
The Ministerial advisory councils currently established are:
• Seafood Industry Advisory Council (SIAC); and
• Advisory Council on Recreational Conservation (ACoRF).
The Commercial Abalone Fishery and other share management and restricted fisheries have
industry members on the SIAC.
The name and composition of the Ministerial advisory councils are determined by
regulations under the FM Act and may be altered from time to time.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-218
D2.2.7.3 Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review Committee
The process for assessing the status of and pressure on abalone stocks will ultimately
include the TAC Committee which is empowered to make “determinations” under Division
4 of Part 2 of the FM Act 1994.
This committee will, as required by the share management plan, make determinations about
the total level of fishing effort to apply in the harvesting of abalone in connection with this
fishery. The TAC Committee consists of at least four members appointed by the minister,
including:
(a) the Chairperson of the TAC Committee, being a person who is neither engaged in the
administration of the FM Act 1994 nor in the commercial fishery;
(b) a natural resource economist not employed by the Government;
(c) a fishery scientist not employed by the Government; and
(d) an independent specialist with appropriate fisheries management qualifications.
The composition and role of the TAC Committee are set by the FM Act and its regulations,
and these arrangements may change from time to time.
Changes were made in early 2005 to make TAC Committee processes more independent,
transparent and accessible. These included engaging an independent person with fisheries
management expertise to be included in the committee. The TAC committee will also
provide opportunities to give oral presentations to the committee and ability for the
committee to meet in regional locations.
D2.3 Factors Affecting the Operation of the Fishery
A history of careful management of the Abalone Fishery coupled with a well developed
research program since 1994 has helped the industry and DPI identify and address many of
the internal challenges that have arisen in the past three decades. Key to the successful
management of internal issues has been the establishment of the 115 mm minimum legal
size (MLS), which allows the majority of abalone in the state-wide population at least two
years of spawning before being harvested. Quota management has also been important to
the successful management of internal issues to the fishery. Quotas protect an appropriate
component of the stock of abalone above the MLS from being taken by commercial fishers.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-219
Despite the benefits to the fishery of an appropriate size limit and quota the NSW Abalone
Fishery is facing a variety of internal risks, identified in the EIS (Section B: Review of Existing
Operations). These are described below and have been considered as part of the FMS.
The main internal risks include:
• potential for inappropriate concentrations of fishing;
• reduced economic viability;
• potential increase in the number of divers (and associated capital investment) relative to
the available resource base;
• insufficient involvement of Industry in management arrangements;
• other ecological impacts from harvesting abalone; and
• potential increases to the rates of discarding abalone.
The internal factors outlined above are largely under the control of either the industry or the
FMA. External risks (Section B of the EIS) are often beyond the control of the industry but
nevertheless have been fully investigated as part of the EIS and require consideration in the
FMS . In some cases, external risks could have a greater impact on the fishery than internal
risks. For example, Perkinsus has been responsible for large-scale reduction of the stock in
assessment Region 1.
Broadly, the main external risks include:
• illegal collection of abalone;
• competing interests in the resource from recreational and Indigenous groups;
• other human-induced impacts on the stock (e.g. aquaculture and sewage disposal); and
• diseases affecting abalone.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-220
D3.0 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES
D3.1 Management Framework
The management objectives in the share management plan for the Abalone Fishery have
been adapted in the FMS and developed as eight broad goals. Each goal has its own set of
objectives and applicable management responses for achieving particular objectives. This
section of the FMS presents the goals and objectives through which the FMS would operate.
Each management action should:
• Describe the current situation for the issue to be addressed by the management
response;
• Outline the management response itself;
• Identify the time frame for implementing the management response; and
• Outline the desired outcome(s) from the management response, in terms of the way
perceived risks to the Abalone Fishery identified in the EIS (Section B) and outlined
in the previous section, are addressed.
In addition, the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (Section D1.2.2) have
been incorporated into the management responses/actions for sustainable management of
the Abalone Fishery.
Figure D2 presents a simple management framework that can be used to relate the overall
requirements under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 through to specific actions that could
be used to ensure the requirements are achieved.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-221
Figure D2. Goals, Objectives and Responses in the Fisheries Management Strategy.
Fisheries Management Act 1994 These are the legal parameters for managing NSW Fisheries resources and developing
fisheries management strategies
Goals of the fishery management strategy These are major objectives that show how the strategy will comply with its legislative
requirements; performance against them must be measured, assessed and responded to
Objectives of the fishery management strategy The objectives relate to the actions used to achieve the fishery goals
Management Response These are the specific actions that will be used to achieve the fishery objectives
In practice, many of the management responses can achieve multiple objectives and even
several goals. Figure D3 shows one example of how a single management response can
affect several goals and objectives.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-222
Figure D3. Example of how a single management response can affect multiple goals and objectives.
Objectives Goals
Minimise risk of Over-harvesting
Maintain sustainable abalone populations Manage harvesting Management Response e.g. setting quotas (TACC)
Equitable Resource Access sharing
This management structure has been dealt with below by listing each management response
once only, under the objective that the response contributes most towards achieving. The
management responses listed below relate to specific actions that contribute directly to
meeting the goals and associated objectives defined for the Abalone Fishery. Some of these
responses have been identified to address specific risks identified in Chapter B of the EIS.
The overall management regime for the Abalone Fishery includes the management
responses, the principles and guidelines contained within the share management plan, as
well as the general requirements of the FM Act and associated Regulations (Appendix B3 of
the EIS). This outlines the time periods within which each management response is
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-223
scheduled to be implemented, and which component of Industry or management has the
lead responsibility for carrying out the actions.
It is important to recognise that the FMS is for the commercial Abalone Fishery and can
manage only those factors that are under the control of management; for example, catch
taken by commercial divers as opposed to catch taken by recreational divers. The strategy
can monitor variables outside the direct control of managers, such as changes in the business
and ocean environment, but is unable to directly address many of these as they are outside
human control. Therefore the goals, objectives and management strategy discussed below
concentrate on variables that are under the control of the commercial fishery and its
management.
D3.2 Vision for the Commercial Abalone Fishery
The vision for the fishery is:
A healthy, productive, well managed abalone stock, being fished sustainably and
profitably by fishers with minimal impact on the natural and social environment.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-224
D3.3 Goals, Objectives and Management Responses
Goal 1. Manage commercial harvesting of abalone to promote the conservation of biological diversity in the coastal environment.
Objective 1.1 Increase knowledge and minimise any adverse impacts of harvesting abalone on bycatch, associated habitats and ecosystems.
(a) Continue to develop and implement a program to increase knowledge of the effects of abalone harvesting on bycatch species and associated habitat and ecosystems.
Background
Unlike most other fisheries, harvesting abalone is highly selective with minimal bycatch. The fishery does not interact closely with any endangered, threatened or protected species or threatened ecological communities. Furthermore, there is little damage to the physical environment and non-target species, associated with harvesting abalone from reefs, as is often the case with trawling and other fisheries. While there is good knowledge of the interaction between abalone and the purple sea urchin, Centrostephanus rodgersii (Andrew et al. 1998), knowledge of the ecological interactions between abalone and other species could be improved.
Two types of surveys, developed by shareholders and DPI, will form the basis of the proposed program. First, surveys of the extent of different habitat types associated with abalone populations have already been completed in areas open and closed to abalone harvesting. Second, surveys of populations of turban shells (Turbo spp.) and sea urchins (i.e. of distribution, abundance, size-structure etc.) associated with abalone habitat have also been completed in areas open and closed to abalone harvesting. These surveys need to be developed and expanded to improve their ability to monitor changes in the environment associated with harvesting abalone. As well as expansion of the surveys to more areas closed to abalone harvesting, the surveys will be developed to consider other species, and particularly the potential use of indicator species. The frequency of the surveys will be considered and will be responsive to identified environmental risks.
In addition to the surveys, a range of other factors will be investigated in the design of the monitoring program, including collaboration with other research institutions, and the development of a reporting system for divers to report observations about bycatch, habitats, ecosystems or threatened and protected species. Historically, divers have been the first to recognise changes in the environment, such as increases in mussel and sea urchin populations, and declines in abalone populations associated with the parasite, Perkinsus. The development of a reporting system for divers may provide very valuable information about changes in the environment, particularly considering the large time spent underwater by divers.
The programs undertaken under this response will enable the selection of an appropriate performance indicator(s) that can be used in the future to monitor the impacts of the fishery on marine biodiversity.
(b) Develop and implement a NSW Abalone Fishery Code of Practice to minimise the impact of harvesting abalone on bycatch species, associated habitats and ecosystems.
Background:
In the past, divers and processors have developed harvesting and handling practices to maintain the quality of abalone for market and to minimise any impact of harvesting on associated species. These practices have been developed in conjunction with the establishment of live markets over the past
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-225
decade. Live exporters demand unmarked, undamaged, vibrant abalone. This quality control starts with the diver carefully removing the abalone without damaging the meat or shell (and if it is undersized then it can be safely resettled). The deckhand must carefully clean algae, invertebrates and debris off shell and pack in special crates, which prevent abalone physically damaging each other (i.e. by abrasion). These crates are held in “live tanks’ on board until removal for validation. These practices already form the basis for an informal code of practice for abalone divers but the code will be extended to a formal NSW Abalone Fishery code of practice that contains information for encouraging best-practice management techniques in all areas of the fishery, with links to the Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC) Code of Conduct for the Australian Seafood Industry, training and accreditation schemes. The code will be adaptive to address evolving knowledge or new issues as they arise. Specific objectives of the code that relate to this management response include techniques to harvest abalone to minimise the impact on associated species, including returning species caught incidentally to abalone (e.g. sponges, gastropods) to the reef and recording sightings and interactions with threatened and protected species or introduced pests.
As indicated above, the code of practice (abalone fishing) also addresses other issues in the fishery as outlined below, and supports the implementation of other management responses in the FMS (particularly responses 2.2c, 2.3a & e, 5.1a & b, 5.2a & b, 7.1b and 8.1b & d):
• harvesting abalone in a manner that would cause minimal impact to the stock and the marine environment;
• returning any fauna caught incidentally to abalone (e.g. chitons) to the reef; • returning undersized stock to original habitat they were collected from; • using best practice handling techniques so as to provide a high quality product to the market; • recording sightings and interactions with marine threatened and protected species and
introduced pests; • educating fishery participants in the importance of the abalone resource to the maintenance of
Aboriginal cultural heritage, and how their operations can be modified so as to minimise any impacts of items or relics of Aboriginal or European cultural heritage;
• reporting evidence of illegal harvesting to the appropriate authorities; and • any other behaviours and practices relevant to the fishery.
(c) Implement, in consultation with the ABMAC, the provisions of any relevant threatened species recovery plan, threat abatement plan, or other similar management arrangements designed to protect critical habitat areas.
Background:
Once a species, population or ecological community has been listed as threatened, a recovery plan must be developed. These plans are designed to return the species, population or ecological community to a point where its survival in nature is assured. The recovery plans referred to in this response could include those being developed under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or other State or Commonwealth legislation.
Additionally, threatened species legislation requires the development of a threat abatement plan for any listed key threatening processes. A threat abatement plan outlines actions to eliminate or manage the key threatening process, and identifies the authorities responsible for carrying out those actions.
This response recognises that the statutory provisions of a threatened species recovery plan or threat abatement plan, or any arrangement necessary to protect a critical habitat area, must be implemented and given precedence over the provisions of this management strategy.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-226
Goal 2. Maintain or rebuild the biomass of abalone to ensure stock sustainability.
Objective 2.1 To maintain the spawning and exploitable biomass of abalone at or above the level observed in 1994
(a) Continue to implement a state-wide TACC for abalone, determined by the TAC Committee, and develop a more complete harvest strategy for the fishery.
Background
The state-wide Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) of abalone is set each year by the TAC Committee. The TACC establishes the maximum weight of abalone to be harvested by commercial fishers within each fishing period, and is implemented using a tradeable quota management system. The TAC Committee is formed under the FM Act and must take account of the objectives of the Act when determining the TACC (see Section 2.2.7.4). Over recent years the state-wide TACC has been reduced to, among other things, compensate for the decline in the populations and reduced catches in Region 1 related to Perkinsus. The TAC Committee has also recommended an appropriate distribution of catch among regions to avoid concentration of fishing effort in the far south of the coast.
A state-wide TACC can provide adequate protection for abalone populations only if catches are distributed appropriately. A management response that aims to distribute commercial catches appropriately will be included in the FMS after a formal assessment of the alternative management options (see management response 2.2b and Section C of the EIS).
The objective of this management response is to maintain the state-wide biomass of mature and exploitable abalone at or above the level observed in 1994. A trigger point has been included within the FMS to detect when the mature biomass and exploitable biomass of abalone is reduced, or is likely to be reduced within the next five years, to below 85% of the biomass observed in 1994. This follows the arrangements in the share management plan. A review of the stock assessment research for abalone in 2000 determined the 1994 level to be a convenient relative reference point for the fishery, but also considered that its appropriateness should be re-examined periodically (Sainsbury 2000). Appropriateness of alternative reference points for the biomass of the stock could be scheduled within the Research Strategic Plan (see management response 6.1a).
The biomass reference points provide guidance to the TAC Committee for making changes in the TACC in response to changes in the abundance of abalone, although other factors need to be taken into account. For example, if the biomass of the state-wide population declines, the question of the desired rate of recovery arises; a matter that may influence the level of the TACC determined for the next fishing period(s). A relevant consideration for the TAC Committee in such a case would be the economic climate in the fishery at the time. A more complete harvest strategy that addresses issues such as the desired rate of change in the TAC under different circumstances would be advantageous as it would provide guidance as to how the TACC is applied under different circumstances. Such guidance would make the TACC setting process more transparent to Industry and allow shareholders to plan operations more effectively over the medium- and long-term.
This management response attempts to achieve the objective of maintaining the state-wide population at or above the level observed in 1994. However, because of spatial variation in changes in biomass, it may be appropriate to assess performance of stock sustainability at a smaller spatial scale. For example, the TAC Committee has suggested combining regional assessments of abalone populations in an attempt to achieve the state-wide objective. Additional objectives and management responses described below also acknowledge, and attempt to address, the substantial depletion of some areas within the state (see Objective 2.2). For example, some populations affected by Perkinsus within
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-227
Region 1 were already depleted in 1994. Further, illegal catches often contribute to overfishing of localised areas. Rebuilding of such depleted populations is a priority for the fishery.
(b) Continue to apply the state-wide minimum legal size of 115 mm
Background
Minimum Legal Size (MLS) limits can be used to protect the reproductive capacity of a population by delaying the harvest of individuals until they have matured and spawned. Commercial divers encouraged the introduction of an MLS of 100 mm in length for abalone in 1973, and encouraged a series of increases to 115 mm by 1987. This MLS is considered necessary to ensure an appropriate level of reproduction in a population with average rates of demography, and is likely to provide at least two years of spawning for individuals with average growth rates before becoming exposed to harvesting. Abalone less than 115 mm in size are now abundant in many populations throughout NSW. Despite this, it may still be appropriate to investigate the potential of alternative size limits and management response 2.2a provides for an examination of alternative size limits on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. For example, different minimum size limits for different areas could be examined, and maximum size limits could also be investigated.
(c) Continue the collection of fishery-dependent information to contribute to the abalone stock assessment
Background
Information about the catch and effort of commercial divers is collected by daily and monthly dockets. Daily dockets provide information on the catch (i.e. weight and number) and effort (i.e. diving hours) within each sub-zone of the fishery. They also provide information about nominated fishers, crew, boat ramps and validation. This information can be summarised and is essential for management of the fishery, particularly for stock assessment (see management response 2.1e). Other information is also collected from the fishery when appropriate. For example, information about the size of abalone being caught is collected when needed.
(d) Continue the collection of fishery-independent information to contribute to the abalone stock assessment
Background
Commercial abalone divers began funding the development of fishery-independent surveys in 1994. These surveys involve sampling the abundance and size-structure of abalone populations in areas throughout most of NSW and have now been completed for 10 consecutive years. This information forms the basis of estimates of change in the mature and exploitable biomass of abalone, and is fundamental to the annual assessment of the population (see management response 2.1e) and determination by the TAC Committee. It may be appropriate to reduce the frequency or intensity of these surveys in the future. The frequency and intensity of the surveys will be responsive to concerns about the population and particularly advice from the TAC Committee. Future development of the surveys will be considered in the harvest strategy to be developed for the fishery.
(e) Continue an annual stock assessment of the abalone resource.
Background
An assessment of the abalone stock is currently prepared each year. The assessment presents all available observations about the abalone populations, and particularly relies on estimates of catch and catch rate from the commercial fishery, and abundance and size-structure from independent surveys. A formal assessment of the current state of the population is made using a length-structured model of
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-228
the state-wide population fitted to observed data on the stock within a rigorous statistical framework. The model is used to simulate the likely effects (i.e. risk to the population) of future catches under a number of scenarios involving different TACCs. The assessment of the current status of the stock, along with the likely effects of future TACCs is presented to the TAC Committee each year and forms the basis of their annual determinations.
Objective 2.2 To improve the efficiency of harvesting and investigate the potential of
techniques to rebuild populations of abalone
(a) Develop a plan to investigate the feasibility of implementing different size limits on a variety of spatial and temporal scales, with provision to implement longer term actions.
Background
Minimum size limits are generally applied to balance harvesting with the capacity of the population to replenish itself. If a size limit is set too high then only a small proportion of a stock will be available for harvesting. If set to low, then immature abalone could be exposed to harvesting thereby increasing the risk of recruitment overfishing. The current state-wide MLS of abalone is 115mm (see management response 2.1b). This is based on the average size at maturity of abalone in NSW which is about 90-100mm. Under average growth rates, individuals are thought to reproduce at least once before reaching the MLS. However, because of spatial variation in growth, and potentially in size at maturity, it may be appropriate to utilise different size limits within different areas and times. For example, in areas with very fast growing abalone (e.g. south of Wonboyn), sustainable yield is likely to be improved by increasing the MLS and allowing individuals a greater chance to reproduce. In areas with stunted abalone populations, where few individuals grow above the MLS, sustainable yield is likely to be improved by decreasing the MLS. To prevent complications related to compliance to the state-wide MLS, such changes to the MLS could be enforced for short time periods (i.e. fishdowns in stunted or flood-prone areas) and/or within specific areas (e.g. south of Wonboyn). Any proposal to modify the MLS will need to carefully consider both biological, compliance and cross-sector issues prior to implementation. For example, while sustainable yield of fast growing populations may be increased by increasing the MLS south of Wonboyn, this may also reduce access to stunted populations within the area, unless short-term fishdowns on these populations are also provided for. Further, implementation of alternative MLSs should consider the current state of the stock, the likely influence of changes in the MLS on commercial catch rate and any associated changes to administration and compliance. For example, if the MLS were to be increased in an area, this may be done in a series of increments when catch rates were high. Alternative MLSs, such as those described above, have been successfully implemented and provide benefits to sustainable yields in all other abalone fisheries in southern Australia.
(b) [Note: A management response to manage the spatial distribution of fishing effort is to be inserted into the final FMS in accordance with the determination in response to the associated EIS for this designated fishing activity. An analysis of the relevant risks associated with the current operation of the fishery and a range of alternative management responses to address those risks is presented in Chapter B and C of this EIS, respectively.].
Background
It is generally acknowledged that stocks of abalone have important structure at small spatial scales. The broad management regions for the Abalone Fishery in NSW probably have different overall levels
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-229
of productivity with little inter-connection. The use of smaller-scale management may be appropriate given uncertainties about stock and sub-stock structure.
There has been a significant shift in fishing effort to the far south of the State in recent years. This may be caused by a variety of factors, including the closure of Region 1, the use of more nominated divers who prefer to work on reefs that provide a more reliable yield in the south of the state and the cost associated with divers operating away from their place of residence. This concentration of effort in the south of the state could result in over-depletion of abalone populations in the area. To address this, there is a need to implement a program to enable a more appropriate distribution of effort across the available fishing area.
[Note: See Chapter C for a detailed examination of the issue and possible response options. Further details of the approved management response to be inserted in accordance with the determination.]
(c) Develop and implement a framework for closing and re-opening areas to commercial abalone harvesting.
Background
Large areas of the coast have been closed to abalone harvesting in the past for different purposes and durations, for example, to minimise the spread of Perkinsus and aid the recovery of abalone stocks affected by Perkinsus, for marketing reasons, and to assist in the protection of the spawning stock (see Figure D1 and Appendix B1 of the EIS for current closures).
The framework will specify objective criteria for opening and closing fishing areas which are based on biological information and have regard to relevant industry needs, including the processing sector. Closure actions need to have clear objectives and include performance indicators for re-opening (or maintaining or strengthening) the closure. All stakeholders need to be clear about what monitoring requirements are for the support of the closure as well as the arrangements for funding these and other costs associated with the closure. The development of criteria will involve collaboration among researchers, managers, commercial abalone divers, shareholders and other stakeholders.
The program will also include guidelines for Industry to apply spatial and/or temporal fishing closures on a voluntary basis (e.g. through the code of practice), and a facility for Industry to request DPI to make the closures mandatory in the event that some divers to not comply. Since DPI retains legal responsibility for such a closure, these arrangements will need to provide for a means of dealing with divergent Industry views on recommended closures (e.g. share- or shareholder based plebiscite).
(d) Implement reseeding experiments in up to 1% of reef in water depths less than 20 m in NSW waters.
Background
Research into the potential of releasing hatchery-reared larval and juvenile abalone to reseed areas of reef has been undertaken by commercial abalone divers and DPI for the past six years. All releases to date have been small, and designed to investigate the development and potential of the technique. While rates of recapture of released abalone have been variable, it is clear the technique offers considerable technical potential. In particular, reseeding offers the potential to redress the over-depletion of localised areas of reef, or mitigate the effects of future impacts, that may occur for a variety of reasons (e.g. illegal catch).
This program will enable the carrying out of relatively small scale experiments to further investigate the potential and effects of reseeding. However, no reseeding will be authorised until a detailed proposal is developed and approved with regard to the FM Act. The proposal will address a range of issues including collection of brood stock, hatchery and grow-out site and maintenance, genetic and
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-230
health issues, harvesting size, monitoring, rights of access including the distribution of costs and benefits among stakeholders, and commercial viability. A separate EIS prepared under the EP&A Act would be required for proposals to reseed over a larger area or to re-seed on an ongoing commercial basis.
(e) Implement experiments on the effects of translocating abalone within 1 km distances, in up to 1% of reef in water depths less than 20 m in NSW waters.
Background
Research into the potential of moving mature abalone short distances (i.e. <1 km) to help rehabilitate abalone populations has been undertaken by commercial abalone divers and DPI for the past ten years. This technique is also used in several other abalone fisheries around the world. All movements in NSW to date have been small, and designed to investigate the development and potential of the technique. For example, abalone have been moved short distances from areas where stunted populations occur, (i.e. where few grow to the MLS) to areas where they have been heavily depleted and grow faster. The abalone that are moved begin to grow more rapidly and contribute to reproduction and potentially recruitment at the new site. Rates of growth and recapture of moved abalone have been high and the technique offers considerable potential. In particular, moving abalone short distances offers the potential to redress the excessive depletion of localised areas of reef, or mitigate the effects of future impacts, that may occur for a variety of reasons (e.g. illegal catch).
This program will enable the carrying out of relatively small scale experiments to further investigate the potential and effects of moving abalone short distances (commonly less than 1 km and never more than 5 km). No short-distance movement of abalone will be authorised until a detailed proposal is developed and approved with regard to the FM Act. The proposal will address a range of issues including the sites and techniques and sizes of abalone to be used, compliance issues, the type and scale of monitoring that will be undertaken, commercial viability and the distribution of costs and benefits, and the implications for other lawful resource users. A separate EIS prepared under the EP&A Act would be required for proposals to move abalone short distances that had the potential to affect a larger area of reef, other lawful resource users or to move abalone over larger distances.
(f) Continue to investigate the potential for, and effects of, restoring abalone populations through sea urchin harvesting in up to 1% of reef in water depths less than 20 m in NSW waters.
Background
Research into the potential of restoring abalone populations by reducing the density of sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) has been undertaken by commercial abalone divers and DPI for the past ten years. Abalone are most abundant in habitats dominated by macroalgae. Sea urchins are able to maintain areas of reef free from macroalgae by grazing. Areas dominated by sea urchins with few macroalgae or abalone are also termed ‘barrens’ or “white rock” habitat. There is some evidence that the area of barrens habitat has expanded over the last 10-20 years, reducing the area of habitat preferred by abalone. It is unclear to what extent, if any, past removal of abalone or other species (e.g. rock lobster) has influenced sea urchin populations. Previous experiments investigating habitat rehabilitation in NSW have been small, and designed to investigate the development and potential of experimental methodology. Reduction of the density of sea urchins could lead to the re-establishment of macroalgae and an appropriate habitat for abalone. Such habitat rehabilitation offers the potential to increase abalone populations by the expansion of the area of reef dominated by sea urchins and hence increasing the amount of habitat available for abalone.
This program will enable the carrying out of relatively small scale experiments to further investigate the potential and effects of habitat rehabilitation. This will be done in conjunction with entitlement
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-231
holders in the Sea Urchin and Turban Shell Fishery, so that the benefits of reducing sea urchin density can be investigated by both fisheries. No habitat rehabilitation will be authorised until a detailed proposal is developed and approved with regard to the FM Act. The proposal will address a range of issues including the sites and techniques to be used, compliance issues, the type and scale of monitoring the will be undertaken, commercial viability and the distribution of costs and benefits, and the implications for other lawful resource users. A separate EIS assessed under the EP&A Act would be required for proposals to manipulate sea urchin abundance that had the potential to affect a larger area of reef or to be conducted on an ongoing commercial basis.
(g) Develop a mechanism for industry to determine the use of a seasonal closure on an annual basis.
Background
A seasonal closure has been used in the past to provide a rest for divers and a time for processors to do annual maintenance. Additionally, this was believed to provide a respite for the stock from disturbance. This would also have the effect of compressing the fishing year into a shorter period, increasing the fishing intensity in the rest of the year. The absence of abalone divers during that period may have allowed increased illegal activity to take place unnoticed.
The intent of this management response is for shareholders to develop a process to collectively decide whether or not to implement a closure each year. DPI will be asked to implement the closure to which will be binding on all shareholders.
Objective 2.3 To address impacts from factors external to the commercial Abalone Fishery.
The draft FMS proposes initiatives for management of the commercial Abalone Fishery, but it is beyond its scope to control many external activities (e.g. illegal harvesting), developments (e.g. aquaculture of abalone) and policies (e.g. proposals for marine parks) which may affect the fishery. However, some of the management responses proposed below can help to minimise the effects of external activities. The EIS (Chapters B & E) evaluates external threats in more detail, but the draft FMS identifies that, without an understanding of external sources of potential change, it is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of management initiatives designed to maintain a viable and sustainable fishery.
(a) Develop a program to manage marine pests and diseases affecting abalone, with initial priority to address Perkinsus, and implement in consultation with ABMAC any measures required in accordance with marine pest or disease management plans.
Background
Outbreaks of Perkinsus are held to be largely responsible for the recent decline of abalone stocks between Port Stephens and Jervis Bay. The current strategy has been to close areas affected by Perkinsus to allow stocks to recover from the parasite without the added pressure of harvesting. Area closures have been implemented in Region 1 since 1995, with a complete closure (including recreational harvest) between Port Stephens and Jervis Bay. Some harvesting, however, is being allowed on a trial basis to assess stock recovery, under a Section 37 permit. Evidence suggests that in the Sydney area at least, recovery has been slow, but this may be confounded by illegal harvesting, which would keep populations of abalone small.
There is a need to develop a response strategy to manage pest and disease incursions, with an initial focus on Perkinsus. The strategy would firstly aim to identify the cause/s of the pest or disease (initially for Perkinsus) and enable the implementation of appropriate and effective management responses. This could include a strategy for closing and opening fishing grounds in and around
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-232
infected areas. The strategy would initially include a policy on how abalone are harvested and handled in areas affected by Perkinsus to avoid the potential of spreading the disease. The code of practice (abalone fishing) (Appendix B4 of the EIS) may inform and will be responsive to this strategy. A research project, which began in 2004 and is being funded by FRDC, will focus on the development of strategies, in line with outcomes of the 2003 expert workshop on Perkinsus, to manage parts of the stock of abalone that have, or might be affected by the parasite.
The strategy to manage Perkinsus prepared under this response would also be able to be used (along with any other general plans for managing marine pests and diseases developed under ‘The Marine Pest and Diseases Management Program’) in the event that some other marine pest or disease began to affect the abalone stock or the fishery. For example, there is concern that colonies of mussels on some reefs on the far south coast of NSW are establishing at an unnatural rate, causing abalone to be displaced. If this problem continues, a plan to respond to mussels needs to be considered.
(b) Continue to support initiatives to refine estimates of the total catch of abalone, including commercial, recreational, Indigenous and illegal catches, for use in stock assessment models and reports to the TAC Committee.
Background
Whilst setting the TACC for the Abalone Fishery, the TAC Committee currently takes into account estimates of total catches including illegal, recreation and Indigenous catches. The accuracy of estimates of non-commercial catch impacts directly on the robustness of stock assessment information and Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal’s (IPART) recommended management charge applied to the commercial fishery (see also Management response 3.1b). Illegal catch includes catches that are not reported by licensed commercial divers or catches sold by unlicensed divers. Estimates of the illegal catch are made by the TAC Committee based on information provided by DPI Compliance and past sporadic surveys, and have been confined by the Committee to estimates of the total weight of illegal catch, rather than the effect of taking smaller sized abalone or trends in illegal catch (i.e. is it increasing or decreasing?). ABMAC has supported research proposals in the past for refining estimates of illegal catch, but dedicated projects are yet to be undertaken. A 12 month survey of recreational fishing in NSW was conducted in 2000-2001 as part of the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey but was not specifically designed to produce precise estimates of the recreational catch of abalone.
(c) ABMAC will provide advice on the development and ongoing management of Marine Protected Areas, including proposed zoning arrangements.
Background
A comprehensive system of representative marine protected areas (i.e. marine parks and aquatic reserves) is being established in NSW to protect and enhance marine and estuarine biodiversity. Large marine bioregions have been identified by the Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia (IMCRA) report.
ABMAC will provide advice on the proposed zoning arrangements for new marine protected areas in ocean waters, including any implications for the abalone fishery and the need for compensation for loss of productive abalone areas.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-233
(d) ABMAC will provide advice on proposed aquaculture developments in NSW that have the potential to affect wild populations of abalone.
Background
The establishment of marine aquaculture enterprises in NSW has potential to affect the Abalone Fishery if abalone are cultured as part of these operations for direct sale to market or used to reseed coastal populations. Abalone aquaculture has the potential to spread disease and alter the genetic structure of wild abalone if cultured abalone are inadvertently released. In addition, sale of cultured abalone competes in the market with the wild fishery, thereby potentially affecting social and economic aspects of the industry. Regular updates to ABMAC of planned aquaculture initiatives that potentially affect the Abalone Fishery would allow Industry to provide advice, plan for, and seek to mitigate the effects of such initiatives. The Abalone Development Company (ADC) also proactively participates in reviewing proposed aquaculture ventures – for example, as a partner in the Memorandum of Understanding to develop a hatchery (for abalone reseeding and oysters) as part of a Marine Centre in Eden; other partners include oyster farmers and the Local Aboriginal Land Council. As a key partner, the ADC receives regular updates on progress.
(e) Continue to communicate with Government and other stakeholders about external factors that have the potential to affect abalone populations, with the aim of minimising such effects.
Background
Communication with groups whose activities potentially affect the Abalone Fishery will be mostly done through ABMAC. Many sectors have representatives on ABMAC – i.e. DPI, the Nature Conservation Council, and recreational and Indigenous sectors. However, ABMAC will also continue to communicate with other government agencies that are not represented on ABMAC (e.g. Marine Parks Authority, DIPNR, NSW Police), and with other agencies which manage abalone fisheries in other states.
Areas of particular concern to abalone fishers include catchment runoff, sewage outfalls discharging into coastal waters and any other activities that modify water quality or may increase the chance of marine pest and disease incursions. Industry is particularly concerned about a possible link between water quality and the Perkinsus parasite.
Additionally, Industry, through the ADC, will continue to liaise with other state and national industry bodies. As a member of NSWSIC, the peak NSW industry body, the ADC, will continue liaising with other sectors such as the aquaculture and marketing sectors and any others that may impact on the abalone fishery. This includes Oceanwatch, the environmental arm of the fishing industry. Industry will also continue its working relationship with Seafood Training NSW (previously known as the NSW Fishing Industry Training Council) with regards to training and OH&S issues to be included in the code of practice (abalone fishing).
(f) Develop a strategic plan for the management of the current closure within Region 1 and all areas of the fishery affected by Perkinsus.
Background
Reductions in the abundance of abalone related to infection by Perkinsus were first confirmed in 1992 near Sydney. The area from Jervis Bay to Port Stephens was closed in November 2002. Although catch from the area was low immediately prior to closure, there is a history of the commercial fishery using of the area when populations in the south of the state are more limited and/or as a seasonal preference for divers. The decline of abalone stocks due to Perkinsus and the
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-234
subsequent closure of the region have led to an increased concentration of divers in the southern regions. The presence of commercial divers in an area can assist compliance through detection and reporting of illegal fishing, as well as providing other information on environmental factors and the resource status. There is currently no strategic plan for the management of areas where abalone are affected by Perkinsus, and the intent of this management response is to develop such a plan. The plan would primarily detail how stock assessment information would be obtained through a structured, scientific sampling program and analyses. Industry representatives have indicated a strong interest in participating in the program and opportunities to do so will be pursued (e.g. using commercial divers to be involved with the survey). The plan would be developed in consultation with ABMAC and ACoRF.
Goal 3. Facilitate effective management arrangements and provision of an efficient fisheries management service.
Objective 3.1. To facilitate the delivery of effective and efficient management services.
(a) Undertake an independent review of the application of established cost recovery principles to the Abalone Share Management Fishery and implement the approved outcomes.
Background
The current cost recovery policy applicable to the abalone share management fishery was implemented when the fishery became a fully established category 1 share management fishery. The policy is based on recommendations made by IPART.
A thorough and open review will be undertaken by an independent person with qualifications and experience relevant to the application of cost recovery principles in the management of fisheries or other natural resources. The cost of the independent reviewer will be fully funded by shareholders in the abalone share management fishery and DPI will provide available information as per the service agreement. The outcomes, once approved by government, will be implemented.
(b) Continue to refine the delivery of specific management services and standards through service delivery agreements or outsourcing regarding research, administration and compliance.
Background
The current share management plan seeks to “Ensure management arrangements for the fishery do not have a significant impact on the costs of taking abalone for sale, and promote cost efficient management, and ensure the fishery remains economically viable” and to “Promote best practice by continually reviewing and refining current performance where necessary”. The delivery of management services requires ongoing monitoring and refinement through service delivery agreements or outsourced contracts, including the development of fishery management standards. The agreements will reflect the mutual obligations of the service provider and service receiver to facilitate the cost effective delivery of services.
Service delivery agreements regarding administration would include, for example, agreements on the mutual obligations of the service provider and receiver regarding budgeting and on the timing of matters affecting the daily operation of the fishery such as quota transfers, processing of matters relating to endorsement holders and crew, catch validation, reconciliation, etc. Service delivery agreements regarding research would include, for example, agreements on the obligations of the service provider and receiver for resource monitoring and assessment and other research as required.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-235
Service delivery agreements regarding compliance would include, for example, agreements on the mutual obligations of the service provider and receiver for monitoring and record keeping, reporting, auditing, sanctions, etc. Service agreement relating to the administration of the MAC to include performance criteria (including times) for all services.
(c) On request by the Abalone Management Advisory Committee (ABMAC), undertake independent performance reviews of the services delivered by DPI under service agreements or other service providers under contract.
Background
Abalone shareholders wish to ensure that they are receiving high quality and efficient performance for the services that they fund under service agreements with the department or contracts with other service providers. Under this management response, ABMAC can request that a review be undertaken for a current service agreement or contract with respect to a specified financial year. The reviews will be undertaken by an independent person with qualifications and experience relevant to assessing the performance of public agencies against service agreements or private sector contracts in the management of fisheries or other natural resources. The cost of the independent reviewer will be fully funded by shareholders in the abalone share management fishery and DPI will provide available information as per the service agreement.
(d) Develop and implement a nominated divers card system to facilitate the efficient use of nominated divers.
Background
To increase the flexibility for shareholders to employ nominated divers at short notice, a new system will be developed; the Nominated Divers Card System. Under this system, business owners whose shareholding exceeds the minimum shareholding specified in the share management plan may apply for a Nominated Divers Card. The business owner can then register a pool of nominated divers associated with their business. A registered diver will be deemed to be endorsed with respect to that business when they are in possession of the card. All registered divers and those in possession of the card must abide by the rules and regulations that would normally apply to the business owner if endorsed. The standard criminal checks will need to be undertaken before nominated divers are first registered and then at six-monthly intervals while they are registered. The Department will cancel a registration if the nominated diver is convicted of an abalone offence or a serious fisheries offence at any stage during the term of the registration. It will be an offence under the share management plan if a nominated diver collects abalone after being convicted of a relevant offence in the intervening period and fails to inform the Department.
(e) Adopt technological improvements in the catch reporting system that are cost effective and result in the earlier receipt of catch and effort data.
Background
The information gained through monitoring catch and effort in the Abalone Fishery is essential to the stock assessment process and for managing the fishery on a sustainable basis. Currently catch data are entered daily and reconciled monthly. Divers are currently advised within five days of discrepancies or omissions of log sheets. Advances in technology are envisaged to be implemented shortly, which will permit electronic data entry for the first time. Divers will be able to submit catch returns by email. Fax or paper copies will be scanned. This will speed-up data entry, improve the efficiency of the catch reporting system and potentially reduce costs. Future technological advances that might provide substantial benefits to the Abalone Fishery will also be considered.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-236
(f) Communicate the Department’s operational plans and policies for the management of the fishery to all fishery participants.
Background
A range of operational plans and policies are used by DPI to manage the Abalone Fishery. The intent of this management response is to work with ABMAC to clarify all current operational plans and policies to ensure transparency and understanding about management of the fishery and to provide clear guidance to industry about implementation, particularly for new entrants. Policies to be reviewed include those relating to outstanding fees, fishery management budgeting and compliance policies related to the measurement of abalone retained by commercial divers.
Goal 4. To promote the economic viability of the fishery
Objective 4.1 To promote the long term economic viability of commercial abalone fishing.
(a) Refine the performance indicators for monitoring trends in the commercial viability of typical abalone fishing businesses so as to be based on net returns.
Background
This management strategy includes a range of indirect performance measures that seek to monitor economic viability of abalone fishing businesses and the Abalone Fishery, using gross returns among other things. Net return, however, rather than gross return, is a better indicator of economic performance as it accounts for changes in shareholders’ and divers’ costs over time. An understanding of the average net return across abalone businesses requires data on market prices, management charges, and the cost of physical inputs such as fishing gear, fuel and bait. A process will be developed in consultation with ABMAC to determine how best to collect data on the costs of harvesting, taking into account confidentiality/privacy concerns and the cost-effectiveness of the data collection methods. Once this process is developed, the performance indicators can be modified accordingly.
(b) [Note: A management response to manage the number of divers is to be inserted into the final FMS in accordance with the determination in response to the associated EIS for this designated fishing activity. An analysis of the relevant risks associated with the current operation of the fishery and a range of alternative management responses to address those risks is presented in Chapter B and C of the EIS, respectively.]
Background
The number of endorsements in the Abalone Fishery has increased from 37 at the commencement of the current share management plan in early 1999/2000 to 42 in April 2004. This increase has occurred as some shareholders have ‘traded down’ their share packages, as a result of the current minimum shareholding specified in the share management plan being set at 70 shares. This has enabled a greater number of shareholders to obtain the minimum number of shares required to hold a diving endorsement in the fishery. The number of endorsements (and associated divers) could increase to 52 under the current minimum shareholding. (Note: the trigger point in the current share management plan (SMP 2000) is breached when the number of endorsements exceeds 42).
An increasing number of abalone endorsements is considered undesirable due to potential reductions in the viability of abalone businesses and the overall productivity of the fishery, given that financial returns would be dissipated among a greater number of participants in the fishery. An increase in the number of divers is likely to cause operational inefficiencies for businesses, particularly through
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-237
longer search times for legal sized abalone as the same areas are worked by more divers more often. This management response would assist in reducing the repetitive handling of abalone and the resultant negative impacts on the growth and mortality of those individuals.
[Note: further details of the approved management response to be inserted in accordance with the determination.]
(c) Develop formal strategies to plan for and adapt to the effects of environmental and economic fluctuations on the fishery.
Background
The Abalone Fishery has a long history of large and sometimes rapid changes in revenue, costs and returns to Shareholders. These fluctuations have had a variety of causes including natural fluctuations in the stock, environmental changes such as large storms, changes in management and the costs of fishing, and external factors such as currency fluctuations and market conditions that have influenced beach prices. The intent of this management response is to develop a range of strategies to enable the fishery to adapt to the effects of such environmental and economic fluctuations. The range of options to be considered include strategies for reducing fluctuations in the TAC, investigating further recovery of the stock (see also harvest strategy in MR 2.1) and other options to reduce the size of fluctuations in the stock, such as reseeding and other enhancement initiatives. Financial strategies, like the Farm Deposit Scheme and/or a sinking fund will also be considered.
(d) Revise the minimum level for trading abalone shares to one share.
Background
There is currently a limit on the minimum number of shares that may be traded in one transaction (10 shares). The intention of this management response is to allow trading of small numbers of shares amongst existing shareholders in order to improve the capacity of shareholders to plan and adjust their business activities as needed. The requirement to hold a minimum of 10 shares would remain.
Objective 4.2 To increase the appropriate level of ownership capacity in the fishery.
(a) Remove the shareholding aggregation limit.
Background
Currently a maximum limit of 210 shares (6%) applies to share ownership in the share management plan. This rule was implemented in response to initial concerns regarding concentration of ownership of shares developing. The fishery is one of several Australian abalone fisheries supplying a global market on which it is a price taker. In future, Industry requires the capacity to have autonomous economic adjustment in response to TAC variations. This may require industry shareholders to aggregate shareholdings to some higher level than the current level of 6%. This is desirable for increasing efficiency and long term economic viability of abalone businesses.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-238
Goal 5. To appropriately share the resource and harvest abalone in a manner that minimises negative social and economic impacts.
Objective 5.1 Mitigate negative impacts of the Abalone Fishery on Aboriginal cultural heritage.
(a) Manage the Abalone Fishery in a manner consistent with the Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan and participate in any review of that Strategy.
Background
The Indigenous Fisheries Strategy and Implementation Plan (IFS) was released in December 2002. The IFS recognises the importance of traditional cultural fishing activities of Aboriginal communities and encourages their involvement in the stewardship of fishery resources. The IFS is based on achieving key results including the sustainability of the resource, respect for Aboriginal fishing heritage, involvement of Aboriginal people in fisheries management, access to social and economic development and employment opportunities in the fishing industry. The IFS establishes a process of discussion and negotiation which can continue with progressive resolution of problems and challenges in relation to Indigenous involvement in the fisheries of NSW. The key point of contact for the commercial Abalone Fishery with the Indigenous sector is via ABMAC, which has a position for Indigenous representation.
The IFS identifies several strategies to assist in this regard, including employment of Aboriginal staff to assist with law enforcement, research and the negotiation of culturally appropriate and fair regulations affecting Indigenous access to fishery resources (including abalone). Permits may be issued to Indigenous people/communities to take more than the recreational bag limit of abalone, on occasion, for traditional cultural purposes. Thus, Indigenous people can apply to the Department for a “special permit” allowing exemption from particular regulations for special events. Two special permits were issued for community cultural events in each of 2002 and 2003 for access to abalone by Indigenous people on the NSW south coast.
(b) To raise the awareness of commercial abalone divers about the traditional value of abalone to Aboriginal people and the way that this traditional value is reflected in contemporary Indigenous communities.
Background
Work is continuing on a review of archaeological and other literature that refers to past and contemporary use of abalone by the Indigenous community. This material includes archaeological survey and excavation reports on coastal middens, ethnographic /historic references and contemporary studies of Indigenous community fishing practices. This material will be supplied to abalone divers and shareholders as a requirement of the code of practice (abalone fishing) (management response 1.1b).
Objective 5.2 To minimise any negative impacts of the Abalone Fishery on Indigenous and European cultural items in the vicinity of abalone harvesting areas
(a) Ensure that abalone divers and shareholders are aware of and take into account any information about areas or items of cultural significance that may be affected by their activities.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-239
(b) Respond, where relevant, to new information about areas or items of cultural significance in order to minimise the risk from abalone harvesting activities
Background to (a) and (b)
The Abalone Fishery needs to respond appropriately to information about items or locations of Aboriginal or other cultural significance (e.g. any newly uncovered shipwrecks). The Department of Environment and Conservation is responsible for management of cultural heritage within National Parks estate and for the protection of Aboriginal objects on all lands. Having regard for cultural heritage sites, particularly where their declaration may affect commercial operations, is essential when promoting equitable access to all resource user groups. As new information becomes available it will be passed on to Industry through the code of practice (abalone fishing) (see management response 1.2a).
The scattered debris and structures of shipwrecks have often created artificial cover for marine flora and flora. All wrecks within the distribution of abalone are close to shore and considerably old and storms have often dispersed metal and other pieces of wreckage. For example, the Lyee-Moon shipwreck off Green Cape is the most historically-significant site, most of which is in water deeper than 30 m and therefore not generally within the range of abalone divers.
The activities associated with harvesting abalone are likely to have little or no impact on cultural heritage values other than those associated with maritime heritage and particularly shipwrecks (see Sections B4.7 and E3.4 of the EIS for further discussion). The NSW Heritage Office is responsible for the management of cultural heritage in NSW (outside of NPWS estate) including the management of shipwrecks and other aquatic heritage items. There are some 250 known shipwrecks along the NSW south coast (south from Wollongong), listed in the Australian National Shipwreck database. Work is continuing on the documentation of these wrecks to assess the risk of interaction between them and Abalone fishery activities. Historic shipwrecks can be the subject of protection at both State and Commonwealth level, although not concurrently. At State level, shipwrecks falling within the definition of ‘historic shipwreck’ are protected by Pt.3(c) the Heritage Act 1977.
Goal 6. Facilitate appropriate research and monitoring of the Abalone Fishery
Objective 6.1 To collect information on the Abalone Fishery and the environment on which it operates in a timely manner.
(a) Continue to implement an integrated monitoring and research program involving both fishery independent research and joint Industry/government initiatives, and update as necessary.
Background
The Abalone Fishery is well suited to fishery-independent surveys of the stock because of its accessibility to researchers via underwater study. Medium to long term fishery independent surveys funded by the fishery participants have resulted in the existence of a comprehensive database of annual surveys, which can be used to measure abalone abundance. This database allows an assessment of appropriate timeframes for future surveys and consideration can be given to conducting surveys at greater than annual intervals, however, the integrity of the stock assessment data directly influences the TAC setting process.
Historically, Industry, in collaboration with DPI, has been involved in research into restoring populations through the harvesting of sea urchins, moving abalone broodstock, experiments on size limits of abalone and matters related to Perkinsus. Industry is currently collaborating with researchers to provide information, additional to the independent surveys, of the status of stocks in
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-240
Region 1. Similar collaborative assessments could be used to assess other areas presently not covered by independent surveys such as northern parts of Region 1 (see also management response 2.3f).
(b) Develop and implement a method of estimating the rate of disturbance of undersize abalone.
Background
The intention of this management requirement is to provide an estimate of the rate at which commercial divers remove, disturb and return undersize abalone. Such disturbance may effect their growth, mortality and spawning. An estimate of the disturbance to undersized abalone, and monitoring of this through time would include performance indicators for this factor and could be developed from a range of fishery-dependent and independent data sources. Fishery-dependent information about the frequency of abalone being landed that are close to the MLS (see MR 2.1c and 7.2c which provide for reporting of a count and weight of abalone within every bin of abalone landed in the fishery) could provide a cost-effective measure of the likely disturbance to undersize abalone. Such information could be further validated by the combination of fishery-independent information about the availability of abalone of different sizes (MR 2.1d) and the use of logbooks (as developed in previous research) by selected commercial divers. Reduction of disturbance to undersized abalone is also referred to in the fishery's draft code of practice.
Objective 6.2 To keep informed of research and management initiatives in other jurisdictions.
(a) Maintain good communication links with abalone researchers, managers, compliance officers and industry bodies nationally and internationally.
Background
The inaugural Abalone Conference held in Adelaide in 2001 brought Industry, researchers, compliance officers and managers together. State abalone researchers and Industry representatives have agreed to meet annually to provide advice on setting research priorities. Officers from NSW have also met with officers from other states to assist in developing state-wide and national compliance strategies. The 2nd National Abalone Convention (Melbourne 2003) also brought Industry, managers and researchers together. Given the limited size of the NSW industry and of the industry nationally, sharing of strategies and development information is essential.
Goal 7. Achieve a high level of compliance within the Abalone Fishery
Objective 7.1 Promote a high level of compliance in the fishery
(a) Continue to implement and review, in consultation with ABMAC and key stakeholders, the compliance strategic plan and update where appropriate.
Background
DPI maintains a Statewide Compliance Plan covering all fisheries. The plan provides an overarching framework that identifies priorities and objectives for compliance throughout the State. This plan is subject to review every three years and needs also to respond to other relevant government initiatives (such as the Report on Illegal Fishing for Commercial Gain or Profit in NSW). The Statewide Operational Plan for the Abalone Fishery and each District Compliance Plan are developed to be consistent with the Statewide Compliance Plan (Industry currently contributes funding for four officers to address abalone theft concerns and to liaise with general duty officers at a local level).
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-241
Consistent with the compliance plans, successful prosecutions are published and serve as a compliance mechanism to deter divers from committing offences against the FM Act and its regulations.
The Statewide Compliance Plan, Statewide Operational Plan for the Abalone Fishery and the Service Delivery Agreement (see management response 3.1b) to be developed for the Abalone Fishery will be reviewed and updated in light of the findings of the Report on Illegal Fishing for Commercial Gain or Profit in NSW.
Communication is essential to address illegal harvesting. A working group between ABMAC and departmental staff could meet periodically to discuss compliance strategies to deal with illegal harvesting of abalone.
(b) Develop a cost-effective system for divers to report the planned location of their fishing activity.
Background
The reporting of the planned location of fishing could provide some benefits for compliance of commercial fishing operations, and hence more effective targeting of illegal activities by non-commercial fishers. Most commercial divers already report the planned location and timing of their boat movements (i.e. boat ramp) and fishing activity (i.e. probable sub-zone) to processors each day. This information is needed to facilitate cost-efficient collection of catches by processors.
A cost-effective system for this reporting could require the provision of this information by divers to processors, and it being made available to Compliance Officers, as required. Such reporting is also identified in the fishery's draft Code of Practice. More regulated requirements for the provision of this information to Compliance Officers would need to address some difficult logistical issues. For example, planned dive locations and times need to be flexible and responsive to local weather and swell conditions.
The effectiveness of the proposed system will be reviewed within two years of its implementation. Particularly with regard to the adequacy of the reporting system through processors (e.g. the provision to DPI of the necessary information in a timely and confidential way to improve compliance outcomes). For example, future options (if necessary) include reporting directly to NSW DPI (rather than to a processor), the introduction of penalty points for breaches or a requirement to operate a Vessel Monitoring System. Any changes would be determined in consultation with ABMAC prior to implementation.
Objective 7.2 To ensure that commercial abalone shareholders, divers, crew and receivers comply with the rules for the fishery.
(a) Continue compliance and enforcement measures applicable to operators in the commercial fishery.
Background
The share management plan (SMP 2000) has as an objective to minimise the number of offences committed by commercial shareholders, divers and crew. Existing compliance and enforcement measures are in place to minimise offences. The share forfeiture offences and the share forfeiture scheme for the Abalone Fishery are defined in the share management plan. Section 75 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 provides for shares to be forfeited if a shareholder is convicted of an offence against the Act.
An endorsement suspension and share forfeiture scheme linked to penalty points will be introduced in all other NSW share management fisheries and the current share forfeiture scheme in the Abalone
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-242
Fishery will be reviewed, in consultation with ABMAC, to ensure a consistent and/or complimentary approach across all schemes. An important principle applied in these approaches is that the scale of the penalty is proportional to the importance of the offence.
The Fisheries Management Act 1994 establishes requirements for fish receivers, which will continue to be applied with respect to abalone.
(b) Extend the fit and proper persons requirements applicable to abalone crew to abalone divers, shareholders and receivers.
Background
As described in the share management plan, the Director may refuse to register a person as an Abalone Fishery crew member if the person has been convicted of any of the following offences, within the period of 5 years before the application for registration is made. The offences include: an offence under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 or the regulations under the Act or an offence relating to commercial fishing operations under a law of the Commonwealth, another State, a Territory or New Zealand; an offence relating to theft of fish, fishing gear or a boat; an offence relating to an assault on a fisheries official. While there are similar provisions for Abalone Fishery endorsement holders (including nominated fishers), they need to be reviewed and extended to shareholders and receivers. The intent of this management response is for similar fit and proper requirements to be extended to all involved in the Abalone Fishery, with the review and consultation to consider the need for any specific variation in requirements among crew, divers, shareholders and receivers.
(c) Require receivers of abalone harvested from the fishery to record the number of abalone handled (in addition to weight) on the prescribed record keeping form(s)
Background
Receivers are currently required to record the weight of abalone, but not numbers of animals. However, the Regulation has been amended recently to provide for recording both weight and numbers, and arrangements for implementation are being made. Abalone lose some of their recorded beach weight (after removal from the water), which provides an opportunity for the illegal addition of more animals in the processing sector. One of the four receivers in NSW has already introduced counts of abalone. This change would also improve consistency with the labelling requirements under the National Docketing System for abalone but would not apply to product from other states where count requirements have not yet been implemented.
(d) Develop and implement a mechanism to apply temporary bans on receivers, wholesalers and retailers (including individuals and business entities) if they are caught in possession of abalone without the appropriate documentation.
Background
Estimates from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) suggest that national abalone exports from Australia are greater than the combined Total Allowable Commercial Catches of all Australian abalone fisheries. This suggests that a significant amount of abalone are being processed that have been caught and sold illegally. In attempting to reduce the problem of illegal fishing of abalone, it is important that the post-harvest sector deal only in abalone taken legitimately and that they retain the appropriate documentation to enable tracking of the product back to an abalone endorsement holder (whether in NSW or other jurisdictions). This management response seeks to impose tougher sanctions on post-harvest operators who trade in illegally caught abalone (i.e. significant quantities of abalone that cannot be accounted for). These businesses undermine the fishery management arrangements that apply to the legitimate commercial harvesting of abalone. The
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-243
details of the arrangements for bans are to be determined in consultation with industry, including details regarding the severity of offences and the duration of bans.
(e) Participate in the development and implementation of a training and accreditation scheme for commercial fishers (i.e. divers and crew).
Background
The minimum qualifications will aim to ensure that commercial fishers, particularly new fishers, have an appropriate understanding of the relevant fishery, the rules that apply, the need for provision of accurate data, appropriate catch handling practices, occupational health and safety requirements and other practices relevant to the sustainable and efficient management of the fishery. Increasing the professionalism of operators can provide long term benefits to the industry. The experience of long term fishers would be recognised in any accreditation scheme.
Objective 7.3 To continue to minimise the illegal catch of abalone.
(a) Design and implement an industry communication program to assist in preventing illegal catch.
Background
Illegal catch has been identified as a major threat to abalone fisheries nationally (MacArthur Agribusiness 1998).
Industry, in collaboration with DPI, will design a notebook that fishers can use to record information on suspected illegal fishing activity. Over time, the information collected may assist in detecting patterns in illegal activity that can be used by compliance officers to focus future compliance efforts. The notebook could contain accurate maps with place codes for reporting suspect activity and a phone number for divers to call (e.g. a 'hot line') to pass on information if immediate compliance action is deemed necessary.
(b) Examine the costs and benefits of increasing effective enforcement to reduce illegal catch and assist in maintaining the fishery biomass relative to other stock rebuilding measures.
Background
The extent of the illegal catch and the consequent value lost to the legitimate commercial fishers is a serious economic issue for Industry. An analysis of the cost effectiveness of adjusting compliance efforts (including any feasible options for detection, surveillance and enforcement) compared to other strategies to rebuild the abalone stock (e.g. research on disease control, reseeding, translocation, etc) warrant thorough assessment in consultation with ABMAC.
(c) Continue implementation of the National Docketing System for abalone product in consultation with ABMAC and abalone processors.
Background
The illegal abalone trade is demand-driven and the National Docketing System seeks to make any abalone sold in Australia traceable, as the system applies across State and Territory borders. This enables illegal abalone to be identified in the market place by enforcement agents.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-244
Goal 8. Ensure adequate stakeholder involvement and community consultation.
Objective 8.1 To ensure the Abalone Management Advisory Committee communicates effectively with shareholders, other industry sectors and other stakeholders.
(a) Continue the development of the MAC and industry networking process to improve the effectiveness of consultation, including the appointment of an independent chairperson and examination of improved communication methods.
Background
The nature and role of the Management Advisory Committee is outlined in the share management plan. Industry companies and networks can be used to increase communication with shareholders. For example, the ADC is in contact with industry members on a regular basis. In addition, there are 4 processors through which all shareholders conduct business and this avenue for communication should be useful. Many shareholders and fishers in the abalone fishery have email access. Its may be a more efficient communication method and should be investigated.
(b) Improve the communication with nominated divers to ensure information from divers is transmitted to management and vice versa.
Background
There are currently nine shareholders working as divers and 30 nominated divers. The increasing number of nominated divers and the aging of the original owner/divers mean fewer shareholders are directly observing the fishery underwater, being replaced by nominated divers. It is important that the information from nominated divers is incorporated into the management system. Nominated divers also need to be able to receive information from managers.
A committee of active divers is currently being set up to enable divers to put their ideas forward and than implement these in the form of actions positive to the resource. Ongoing meetings of all divers are currently being scheduled to enable compliance workers and shareholders to develop an information package for all divers and deckhands on issues ranging from how to report illegal activity to identification of introduced species.
Industry holds regular updates/courses, for both divers and deckhands including First Aid, General Purpose Deckhand and Coxswain courses. Courses are also conducted through Seafood Training NSW (previously known as the NSW Fishing Industry Training Council).
The code of practice (abalone fishing) is being developed to help achieve this response (management response 1.1b).
(c) Consult with abalone processors and marketing agencies while developing management policies.
Background
The post harvesting sector (processing and marketing) plays an important role in maintaining or enhancing the economic viability of the fishery. As the Abalone Fishery depends on overseas markets, the marketing sector’s role in observing any changes in overseas markets is important. This sector is also important in identifying illegal activities in the fishery. Consultation between ABMAC and abalone processors and marketing agencies will increase the effectiveness of the development of management policies.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-245
(d) Promote consultation with the Aboriginal community in a culturally appropriate manner.
Background
The Indigenous Fisheries Strategy (IFS) provides an overall framework for the participation of Indigenous people in fisheries management in NSW. Aboriginal practices for information sharing, discussion and decision making are often inconsistent with modern day European methods of consultation. The effectiveness of consultation with Aboriginal communities can be improved by placing more emphasis on face-to-face briefings and discussion of issues, longer time frames for documents requiring written comments and feedback to Aboriginal people on the outcomes of the consultation process. Such communication techniques, as well as ensuring the content of material is culturally appropriate, should be carried out whenever possible. Encouraging an Aboriginal person to accept a position as a member on ABMAC would be a positive first step in this regard.
The fishery code of practice is being developed to help achieve this response (management response 1.2a).
(e) Encourage Aboriginal involvement in the commercial fishery.
Background
Aboriginal fishers have a tradition of access to the abalone resource for cultural and barter purposes. The intent of this management response is for Shareholders in the fishery and DPI to encourage Aboriginal fishers and communities to access the abalone resource for their communities through involvement in the Commercial sector of the Abalone Fishery. In particular, this could be achieved through employment in the fishery as divers or crew to develop commercial fishing skills, expertise and experience or through direct investment in the industry.
Objective 8.2 To promote community awareness about the importance of habitat and other environmental factors that affect abalone.
(a) Communicate information about the habitat (including alienation of reefs), stocks and risks to the fishery from invasive species and disease outbreaks to the community.
Background
The reasons for recent closures of areas for collecting abalone need to be explained to the public and recreational fishers. Information should be provided on the Perkinsus pathogen and its affect on abalone stocks as well as risks from other invasive species and from illegal fishing. Communication could be in the form of media releases, posters to be displayed at tackle shops and licensing agents and an article on the DPI website. Ways in which the community can modify its behaviour to decrease the environmental risks and help prevent further disease outbreaks should be identified and communicated.
(b) Develop a communication plan regarding human-induced environmental impacts that are likely to adversely effect or alienate abalone populations, habitat or reef.
Background
A variety of external factors can effect abalone populations, habitats and reef, and potentially the interests of Shareholders. These might include developments such as sewage outfalls or reclamation of reefs. The intent of this management response is to improve communication among Shareholders, proponents of developments, local councils, DPI and other Government agencies about the types of developments that may affect abalone. Initially, this will involve the preparation of an information
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-246
package to advise council and agency planners about potential impacts that can adversely affect abalone. Opportunities to involve other fisheries or entities such as Catchment Management Authorities will also be explored.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-243
D4.0 PERFORMANCE REPORTING AND MONITORING
D4.1 Performance Monitoring
Many of the management responses listed in Section 3 of the FMS contribute to achieving
multiple goals. Therefore, rather than examining the performance of each individual
response or objective, it is more efficient and appropriate to measure the performance of the
management strategy against the eight goals (i.e. the major objectives). A periodic report
will, however, be prepared (as outlined later in this section) detailing the progress made in
implementing each of the management responses.
D4.1.1 Performance Indicators
The performance indicators provide the most appropriate indication of whether the
management goals are being attained. Monitoring programs are to be used to gather
information to measure performance indicators. These performance indicators and
associated monitoring programs are detailed in Table D2. The performance indicators
defined in the share management plan and monitored since its introduction in 2000 have,
where appropriate, been incorporated into Table D2.
D4.1.2 Data Requirements and Availability
The data requirements and availability for each performance indicator relate to the collection
of information used to measure the performance indicators. Much of the information will
come from existing monitoring programs for the Abalone Fishery, but some information will
only be provided as new information becomes available. Table D2 identifies the information
sources and data requirements and availability used as part of the performance monitoring
and review process for the fishery.
D4.1.3 Robustness
The robustness ratings applied to each performance indicator in have been selected
according to the following definitions:
• Highly robust (‘High’): The indicator is a direct measure of the goal, or if indirect, is
known to closely reflect changes in the issue of interest;
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-244
• Moderately robust (‘Medium’): The indicator is suspected to be a reasonably
accurate measure against the goal, or the known error is in the conservative
direction; and
• Minimally robust (‘Low’): The degree to which the indicator measures against the
objective is largely unknown, or known to be low. Often this will involve surrogate
indicators.
D4.1.4 Trigger Points
The trigger points specify the point when a performance indicator has reached a level that
suggests a potential problem with the fishery and a review of management arrangements is
required. The review will determine the suspected reasons for the breach of the trigger
point and whether any action is required.
Table D2 establishes the performance indicators and trigger points that will be used to
measure whether each of the management goals described in Section D3 of this management
strategy are being attained. As the performance indicators defined in the share management
plan have been incorporated into Table D2, so have the triggers associated with them.
D4.2 Predetermined Review of Performance Indicators and Trigger Points
It is likely that changes to the activities authorised under the FMS would evolve over time in
response to issues that arise or better understanding of the Abalone Fishery and its related
ecology. It is also likely that performance indicators will be refined over the course of the
next few years and it may then be an inefficient use of resources to continue monitoring the
performance indicators that appear in the management strategy. If new information
becomes available as a result of research programs, more appropriate performance
indicators and trigger points can be developed and amendments to the management
strategy may be considered for approval by the Minister for Primary Industries accordingly.
A potential risk, however, of this approach, is that data collected in relation to a
management response may not be comparable through time. Therefore, it is important to
assess the benefits of continuity of data compared to changing approaches and relying on
new types of data.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-245
A comprehensive review of the appropriateness of all performance indicators and trigger
points will be carried out not more than three years from the commencement of the
management strategy, in consultation with the ABMAC.
As new or improved guidelines for fishery reporting become available, such as those being
considered in the ‘National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries – the how to guide
for wild capture fisheries report’ (Fletcher et al. 2002), they will be taken into account to
promote continuous improvement in the management of the fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-246
Table D2. Performance indicators and trigger points for Goals 1-8 of the Management Strategy.
Goal 1: Manage commercial harvesting of abalone to promote the conservation of biological diversity in the coastal environment.
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
1.1 [To be determined following refinement of the program to increase knowledge of the effects of abalone harvesting on bycatch species and associated habitat and ecosystems]
A program to increase knowledge of the effects of abalone harvesting on bycatch species and associated habitat and ecosystems, is proposed to be further developed (see management response 1.1). This program will identify appropriate performance indicators to assess the impact of the fishery. Determination of the effects of the fishery will require monitoring in areas open and closed to abalone harvesting.
[To be determined] - Performance indicators for assessing the effects of the fishery on biological diversity in the coastal environment are not defined. A program, already underway, to increase knowledge of the effects of abalone harvesting on bycatch species and associated habitat and ecosystems, is proposed to be refined (see management response 1.1a).
1.2 Adherence with the fishery code of practice
The fishery code of practice is currently being developed and implemented. Information about breaches of the code will be compiled.
Breaches of sections of the code of practice that refer to minimising the impact of the fishery on biological diversity in the coastal environment.
Medium The fishery code of practice describes harvesting practices to minimise or avoid impacts of the fishery on biological diversity in the coastal environment.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-247
Goal 2: Maintain or rebuild the biomass of abalone to ensure stock sustainability
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
2.1 Biomass of mature and exploitable abalone
All available information is combined within a formal modelling framework to provide information about changes in the mature and exploitable biomass of abalone. This information includes surveys of abundance completed independent of the fishery, standardised catch rates of commercial divers and the size of abalone being caught. Management responses are proposed to collect this information when appropriate.
The state-wide biomass of mature or legal sized abalone:
(a) falls below the 1994 benchmark by more than 15%, or
(b) there is > 50% chance of (a) occurring in the next 5 years if the TAC is unchanged.
High Incorporation of all available information into a formal modelling framework can provide the most reliable and objective assessment of change in biomass. Because of spatial variation in changes in biomass, it may be appropriate in future to assess performance relative to this objective at a smaller spatial scale (e.g. regional).
2.2 [A performance indicator for monitoring regional catch is to be inserted after the Minister determines the appropriate management response]
2.3 Response of the fishery to marine pest and disease incursions
Reports on the monitoring of pests and diseases are needed and will be provided to ABMAC by the Marine Pest management Program
Guidelines specified in any marine pest and disease management program are not adhered to in the Abalone Fishery
Medium Marine pest and disease management programs are responsible for monitoring marine pests and diseases and developing contingency plans in the event of new incursions. This performance measure provides that management of the fishery will be responsive to existing or new marine pest and disease incursions that may threaten the biodiversity in the marine environment.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-248
Goal 3: Facilitate effective management arrangements and provision of an efficient fisheries management service
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
3.1 Performance of service delivery agreements as established by independent performance reviews
Management response 3.1(b) provides for independent performance reviews of the services delivered by DPI under service agreements or other service providers under contract, upon the request of ABMAC. Such reviews will provide the information necessary for this performance measure.
An independent performance review finds the performance of service delivery agreements unsatisfactory and recommends changes to the FMS.
High Service delivery agreements between shareholders and service providers will be the basis for efficient and effective management of the Abalone Fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-249
Goal 4: To promote the economic viability of the fishery
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
4.1 Raw catch rate of commercial divers
Raw catch rate for specific periods is monitored as part of the ongoing stock assessment program. Data available from DPI records.
Raw catch rate of commercial divers falls below 19.12 kg/hr.
Medium Raw catch rate of commercial divers is an indicator of the operating costs of fishing operations, thereby affecting net return to divers.
Catch rate and biomass from 1994 have been used as appropriate benchmarks in the share management plan. Raw catch rate in 1994 was 22.50 kg/hr. The trigger represents a reduction to 85% of this level (i.e. 19.12 kg/hr).
4.2 Beach price of abalone
The average beach price for abalone in each fishing period paid to fishers by processors. Data available from processor records.
Beach price falls below $35.70 per kg (CPI adjusted each year).
Medium Beach price is a direct and immediate indicator of the market price of abalone. Whilst well run businesses plan for fluctuations in market price, it is recognised that primary industries are subject to a number of unpredictable market factors such as competition, changing consumer preferences, strength of the Australian dollar and other world issues (eg. SARS). Sustained or sudden reductions in beach price can present significant cash flow issues for businesses, and potentially affect their ability to pay for the costs of fishing.
An independent report by Dominion Consulting indicated that during consultations about the Community Contribution in 1999 at the then prevailing TACC, shareholders required a beach price of $36 per kg to have the capacity to pay. With CPI increases, this represents $42 per kg in 2003-04. The trigger represents a reduction to 85% of this level (i.e. $35.70).
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-250
4.3 Total commercial catch of abalone
Commercial catch of abalone for each fishing period. Data available from DPI records.
Total commercial catch falls below 85% of the TACC in the fishing period.
Medium The commercial catch level, along with beach price and the costs of fishing, affects the economic viability of the fishery.
4.4 Management fees
The fee per share payable to undertake the services required to manage the fishery. Data available from DPI and Abalone Development Corporation (ADC) records
Management fees increase by more than CPI between any two consecutive years.
Medium Changes in management fees and other input costs are important factors affecting net returns to shareholders.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-251
Goal 5: To appropriately share the resource and harvest abalone in a manner that minimises negative social and economic impacts
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
5.1 Adherence with the code of practice (abalone fishing)
The code of practice (abalone fishing) is currently being developed and implemented. Information about breaches of the code will be compiled.
Consistent or serious breaches of code with respect to interaction with other harvest sectors and items of cultural heritage.
Medium The code of practice (abalone fishing) describes harvesting practices and protocols that seek to minimise any potentially negative impacts of the fishery to other harvest sectors (incl. recreational and Indigenous fishers) and items of cultural heritage.
5.2 Proportion of abalone taken by the commercial sector relative to the recreational and Indigenous sectors.
Requires commercial landings data and information (or estimates) of catches by other stakeholder sectors. Data will be obtained through mandatory catch reporting provided by abalone fishers and through any recreational and Indigenous fishing surveys.
Relative catch between sectors shifts by 25% or more between year 1 and year 5 values following the commencement of the FMS and then every five year period thereafter.
High Further work would be needed to define specific targets for appropriate sharing of the resource and what might be considered a negative social impact. In the interim, however, a trigger point can be specified that will detect a relative large shift in catch over time between stakeholder sectors.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-252
Goal 6: To implement appropriate research and monitoring of the fishery
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
6.1 The scientific data available for assessment of abalone stocks
Data for setting the TACC are collected by current research programs.
Appropriate data are available to meet the requirements of the TAC committee
TAC Committee determines insufficient scientific data is available for the purpose of setting the total allowable catch for abalone within acceptable levels of confidence.
High The TACC setting process is critical to the operation of the commercial fishery and depends on collection of scientific data through the research and monitoring program.
6.2 Research Strategic Plan for the Abalone Fishery reviewed and updated annually
Data about frequency and outcomes of reviews required and available through records kept by DPI
In any year, the Research Strategic Plan is not reviewed and updated, including consultation with ABMAC.
Moderate A strategic plan for research focuses activities and helps to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the programs undertaken. Annual presentation of the plan to ABMAC, in terms of the outcomes achieved, and consultation regarding further development of the plan will ensure the plan accommodates the needs of the Abalone Fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-253
Goal 7: To achieve appropriate compliance, monitoring and enforcement within the abalone fishery
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
7.1 The percentage of total inspections of commercial divers which result in the detection of minor and major offences
Rate of compliance is estimated from information about the annual number of inspections, with the rate of compliance determined by the number of inspections with observed non-compliance as a proportion of those with observed compliance. Information about the scale of the offence can also be considered.
Percentage of detections of minor offences exceeds 20% of inspections; detection of major offences exceeds 10% of inspections.
High This is an enforcement-based measure of compliance in the existing share management plan.
7.2 The percentage of total inspections of processors and wholesalers which result in the detection of minor and major offences
Rate of compliance is estimated from information about the annual number of inspections, with the rate of compliance determined by the number of inspections with observed non-compliance as a proportion of those with observed compliance. Information about the scale of the offence can also be considered.
Percentage of detections of minor offences exceeds 20% of inspections; detection of major offences exceeds 10% of inspections.
High Appropriate monitoring of the post-harvesting sector is required to reduce the occurrence of the amount of abalone that has been illegally caught and sold.
7.3 Compliance Strategic Plan for the Abalone Fishery reviewed and updated annually
Data about frequency and outcomes of reviews required and available through records kept by DPI
In any year, the Compliance Strategic Plan is not reviewed and updated, including consultation with ABMAC.
Moderate A strategic plan for Compliance focuses activities and helps to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the programs undertaken. Annual presentation of the plan to ABMAC, in terms of the outcomes achieved, and consultation regarding further development of the plan will ensure the plan accommodates the needs of the Abalone Fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-254
Goal 8: Ensure adequate stakeholder involvement and community consultation
Performance indicator Data requirements and availability Trigger point Robustness Justification/comments
8.1 Adherence with the code of practice (abalone fishing)
The code of practice (abalone fishing) is currently being developed and implemented. Information about communication with stakeholders will be compiled.
Consistent or serious breaches of sections of the code of practice (abalone fishing) relating to communication with stakeholders.
Low The code of practice (abalone fishing) will be an effective means by which a sound consultative process occurs between sectors of Industry and other stakeholders regarding issues of importance.
8.2 Number of ABMAC meetings held each year
The number of ABMAC meetings held is available through records kept by DPI.
Number of ABMAC meetings is less than 2 in any financial year, unless otherwise agreed by the ABMAC.
Low Holding two ABMAC meetings per year is currently a requirement of the FM (Genera) Regulation which ensures that regular stakeholder consultation is taking place and can lead to improved management outcomes.
8.3 Occurrence of port meetings conducted with divers and fisheries officer.
Records of port meetings held are kept by DPI.
No port meetings held in any financial year, unless otherwise agreed by the ABMAC.
Low Port meetings provide for communication between abalone fishers and DPI on issues impacting on the Abalone Fishery (including operation, social and economic issues).
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-255
D4.3 Reporting on the Performance of the Fisheries Management Strategy
There are two types of performance monitoring reports to be prepared under the FMS. One
reports generally on the performance of the fishery with respect to the strategy. The other is
a review report, which is to be prepared if a performance indicator for the fishery is
breached.
D4.3.1 Performance Report
A performance assessment examining each performance indicator will be undertaken
annually. A report on the performance indicators will be submitted to the Minister
responsible for Fisheries in NSW within two years of the commencement of the FMS, and
biennially thereafter. The report is the formal mechanism for reporting on performance
indicators and trigger points, and will be made publicly available. It will also include a
review of progress made in implementing each of the management responses. The
performance report may be submitted to the Minister for Primary Industries in conjunction
with performance reports for other relevant fishery management strategies.
The vast majority of management responses in the management strategy are linked to
specified implementation timeframes. Some of these management actions are subject to
specific trigger points that ensure reviews and appropriate remedial actions if the target
timeframes are not met.
If the performance report identifies that any specified target timeframe has not been met, a
review will be undertaken and any necessary remedial measures recommended to the
Minister for Primary Industries.
The fishery will continue to be regarded as being managed within the terms of the FMS
while any remedial measures associated with breaches in timeframes or triggering of
performance indicators are being considered through the review process and/or by the
Minister for Primary Industries.
D4.3.2 Review Report in Response to Trigger Points
If the trigger point for a performance indicator is breached, a review is to be undertaken of
the likely causes for the breach. Any such review is to include consultation with ABMAC.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-256
DPI will continue to collect and analyse information relevant to the performance of the
fishery, such as compliance rates, economic data, catch data and other statistics as the
information becomes available and prior to the preparation of reports relating to
performance monitoring in the management strategy. This does not, however, prevent a
review from being conducted at any other time should it become apparent that a
performance indicator has breached a trigger point.
Once the relevant information is obtained an initial analysis against the trigger points will be
undertaken by DPI. Where the data or information indicates that a trigger point has been
breached, details will be provided to the relevant fishery MACs and the relevant Ministerial
advisory councils. Consultation will then occur with the ABMAC and other relevant
advisory bodies either through a meeting or out of session. During this consultation, advice
will be sought on the suspected reasons for any breaches. During this consultation ABMAC
will also be able to provide advice on the preparation of any review reports that are
required.
A review report outlining the remedial actions recommended in response to trigger point
breaches, is to be provided to the Minister for Primary Industries within 6 months of the
trigger point being breached. Reviews arising from landings data exceeding trigger points
should consider, but not be limited to, the following factors:
• changes in the relative catch levels among harvest sectors (including those beyond
NSW jurisdiction);
• new biological or stock information (from any source) available since the most recent
review of the species;
• changes in the activities or effectiveness of fishing businesses targeting the species;
• changes in principal markets or prices for the species; and
• environmental factors.
Review reporting should include whether the suspected reasons for the trigger point being
breached are the result of a fishery effect or an influence external to the fishery, or both. If a
review concludes that the reasons for the trigger point being breached are due to the
operation of the fishery, or if the fishery objectives would be compromised if the fishery
continued to operate unchanged, management action must be taken with the objective of
returning the performance indicator to an acceptable range within a specified time period.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-257
The nature of any remedial action proposed may vary depending on the circumstances that
have been identified as responsible for the trigger point being breached.
If a review considers that the management objectives or performance monitoring provisions
are inappropriate and need to be modified, the strategy itself may be amended by the
Minister for Primary Industries. If the reasons are considered to be due to the impacts on
the resource from factors external to the fishery, these factors should be identified in the
review and, if possible, referred to any relevant managing agency for action.
There may be circumstances where no change to management arrangements or the
management strategy is deemed necessary following the review. For example, a review
could be triggered because the landed catch declines. However, there would be little cause
for concern over the performance of the management strategy if the decline in abalone catch
was clearly caused by a drop in market prices as price fluctuations can result in divers
adjusting their activities. All review reports will be publicly available.
D4.4 Contingency Plans for Unpredictable Events
In addition to the circumstances outlined above, the Minister for Primary Industries may
order a review and/or make a modification to the management strategy in circumstances
declared by the Minister for Primary Industries as requiring contingency action, or upon the
recommendation of the ABMAC. In the case of the former, the Minister for Primary
Industries must consult the Abalone MAC on the proposed modification or review.
These circumstances may include (but are not limited to) food safety events, environmental
events, disease outbreaks, unpredictable changes in overseas markets, results of research
programs or unpredictable changes in fishing activity over time. The Minister for Primary
Industries may also amend this FMS if matters identified during the finalisation of any other
FMS indicate that a modification is necessary.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-258
D5.0 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
D5.1 Previous Reviews and Priorities
The Abalone Fishery has previously been subject to programs of research and development.
Programs have become more extensive over time and many are ongoing. The basis for the
current stock assessment program was initiated by DPI and Industry in 1993 through an
FRDC grant. Other areas of research and development (e.g. abalone-sea urchin interactions,
the potential for reseeding) have also occurred in the past, some of which are ongoing.
An external review of the stock assessment research and monitoring program in the fishery
has also been undertaken (Sainsbury 2000). The Review entailed detailed interviews with
stakeholders, including members of the TAC Committee and ABMAC, the fishery manager,
researchers, abalone divers and processors, to identify their views on research and the stock
assessment and reporting process. As the review was done some time ago, many of the
recommendations have been implemented. Consultation at the time indicated that there
was very strong support for the current assessment modelling and stock assessment, which
were considered adequate for the needs of the current operation of the fishery.
Research priorities at the time were assigned by the review. Those with the highest priority
and still to be done were:
• Reconstruction of historical catch data;
• Review and incorporation of all historical catch data into the assessment;
• Independent verification of model estimates of population parameters by Region;
• Estimation of illegal catch level and fate;
• Strategic Direction: impacts of coastal pollution and development;
• Strategic Direction: stock and habitat enhancement;
• Strategic Direction: finding solutions to the illegal catch; and
• Strategic Direction: identify and evaluate options for fishery rebuilding.
In addition, there are broad objectives for research in the share management plan. These are
to collect the information that is needed to complete an annual assessment of abalone stocks
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-259
in NSW; and to investigate techniques for increasing the productivity of the abalone stocks
in NSW.
D5.2 Current Priorities
Current priorities for research and development (Table D3) are linked to the goals and
objectives of the FMS and share management plan and are consistent with previous
approaches. The various sub-programs for research can be grouped into four broad
categories: stock assessment; habitat and ecosystem; rebuilding biomass; and socio-
economic.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-260
Table D3. Proposed Strategic Plan for Abalone Research. Funding secure (black shading); funding not yet committed (grey shading).
Research Project Priority 2005/06 Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Stock Assessment
Fishery-independent surveys of the relative abundance of abalone
High Annually, with potential for changes to periodicity
Industry/DPI Monitor abundance of abalone on reefs. Fishery-independent surveys currently done annually at fixed sites along NSW coast. Analysis of data from this survey provides time-series of indices of annual abundance of 3 size-classes of abalone. These time-series provide: (i) an important component of the resource assessment and (ii) the basis for calibration of the model of the abalone population & fishery. Options for maximising the cost-benefit of this survey (e.g. frequency of survey, number of fixed sites sampled each survey) should be periodically reviewed.
Analysis of fishery-dependent catch and effort data (from the commercial fishery)
High Annually Industry/DPI Monitor catch, effort and CPUE (and their spatial and temporal variation) for the commercial fishery. These fishery-dependent data are sourced from the daily logbooks completed by commercial abalone fishers. Analysis of these data provides time-series of catch and indices of abundance of legal-sized abalone. These time series provide: (i) an important component of the resource assessment and (ii) the basis for calibration of the model of the abalone population and fishery.
Modelling for resource assessment and analysis of harvest strategies
High Annually, with potential for changes to periodicity
Industry/DPI Provide model-based estimates of: (i) stock depletion (relative to 1994 and virgin biomass) and (ii) prospective changes of biomass in response to alternative TACCs. A length-structured model of the population of abalone and the fishery is used within a Bayesian framework to provide retrospective and prospective estimates of biomass. This model is currently updated annually and provides a key component of the resource assessment.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-261
Research Project Priority 2005/06 Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Resource assessment High Annually, with potential for changes to periodicity
Industry/DPI Provide an annual assessment of the status of the abalone resource and analysis of the consequences of alternative TACCs. This resource assessment (currently completed annually) is the primary source of information used by the TAC Committee in making its determination. The assessment is principally based on data from the fishery-independent survey, fishery-dependent catch & effort and retrospective and prospective components of the model of the stock & fishery.
Develop methods for estimating the illegal catch of abalone
High Not determined Industry/DPI Develop a methodology and provide estimates of the annual illegal catch of abalone in NSW. Accurate assessment of the status of the abalone stock is dependent on knowledge of the commercial, recreational and illegal components of the total catch. The nature of illegal fishing makes it very difficult to obtain a precise estimate of illegal catch. Illegal fishing, however, is a major risk to the resource and more precise information about its magnitude and variation through time is needed to: (i) improve the accuracy of the stock assessment model and resource assessment and (ii) to provide the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of Compliance (and allocating appropriate Compliance resources).
Develop / implement methods for improving monitoring and assessment of abalone stock in Region1
Medium Not determined Industry/DPI Design and implement methods for monitoring abalone abundance in Region 1; Develop the model of the abalone population and fishery to provide retrospective and prospective model-based estimates of biomass in Region 1.
Region 1 (Jervis Bay to far-north coast of NSW) is a large region, with its southern section (Jervis Bay to Port Stephens) currently closed to fishing due to Perkinsus-related mortality. This region is inadequately covered by the fishery-independent survey and fishery-dependent catch and effort data is limited to the small amount of commercial fishing that occurs north of Port Stephens.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-262
Research Project Priority 2005/06 Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Develop/implement methods for estimating the recreational and Indigenous catches of abalone
Medium Not determined Industry/DPI/ Other
Develop and implement a strategy and methodology for estimating annual catches of abalone by recreational and Indigenous fishers in NSW. Accurate assessment of the status of the abalone stock is dependent on knowledge of the commercial, recreational and illegal components of the total catch. The most precise survey-based estimate was made in 1997. A long-term strategy for repeating this survey periodically, or an alternative survey design, needs to be developed.
Develop / implement a method for estimating the rate of discarding of undersize abalone
Medium Not determined Industry/DPI/ Other
Design and implement a method for estimating and monitoring the rate of discarding of undersized abalone. Removal and then subsequent discarding of sub-legal-size abalone may impact subsequent spawning, growth or survival. Such impacts could be significant at times when legal-size abalone are relatively scarce and a large proportion of abalone removed by divers are subsequently discarded. The simplest methodology may involve fishers providing estimates of numbers of abalone removed and subsequently discarded on the existing daily logbook.
Validation of growth parameters used in the stock assessment model
Low Not determined Industry/DPI/ Other
Validate assumptions about growth of abalone used in the stock assessment model. A tagging program, done in cooperation with Industry, could provide estimates of growth parameters at spatial and temporal scales of interest. In addition to validating parameters of growth used in the assessment model, understanding differences in growth with latitude (or at more complex spatial scales) would facilitate analysis of the benefits of alternative minimum sizes and the spatial scale at which different minimum sizes should be applied.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-263
Research Project Priority 2005/06 Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Habitat and Ecosystem
Investigating and managing the Perkinsus-related mortality of blacklip abalone in NSW
High Potential extension of the FRDC project
FRDC/DPI/ Industry
1. Document the historical evidence about the spread of Perkinsus-related mortality of abalone in NSW;
2. Describe the pathogenesis and make initial investigations of the epidemiology of the mortality of abalone; and
3. Contribute to the development of strategies to manage populations of abalone that have, or might be, affected by Perkinus and evaluate the need for further research.
A key component of this project is a survey of Perkinsus infection in abalone along the NSW coastline (providing evidence of any change in distribution since the survey done in 2002. This is a 1-year FRDC funded project that finishes in January 2006.
Development of a program to monitor the impacts of harvesting abalone on the coastal environment
Low Not determined Industry/DPI/ Other Institutions
Increase knowledge of the effects of harvesting abalone on the associated ecosystems.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-264
Research Project Priority 2005/06
Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Rebuilding Biomass
Development and delivery of technology for enhancement of black-lip abalone fisheries in NSW using hatchery-produced seed stock
High FRDC/ DPI/ Sydney University/ University of New England
1. To evaluate alternative methods of reducing high post-release mortality rates commonly sustained by hatchery produced abalone seed;
2. To optimise production of triploid black-lip and scarlet-rayed abalone; and
3. To assess the utility of sterile but potentially fast growing triploid black-lip and scarlet rayed abalone for enhanced fisheries production.
FRDC-funded project beginning in 2005 and scheduled to finish in 2008.
Design / Implement experiments to assess reseeding, translocation of abalone and harvest of sea urchins to rebuild populations of abalone
Medium Not determined Industry/DPI Other
To investigate the potential of reseeding and translocating abalone and harvesting sea urchins as a means of rebuilding populations of abalone. These techniques have potential to assist in rebuilding populations of abalone that have been depleted by illegal fishing or expansion of sea urchin ‘barren grounds’. These techniques would be experimental and restricted to <1% of reef in NSW waters.
Assessing the effects of alternative size limits
Medium Not determined Industry/DPI To assess (and implement where appropriate) alternative size limits that would contribute to rebuilding of populations or improve the efficiency of harvesting. Involves various approaches. For example, modelling may be combined with tagging to assess the feasibility of alternative size limits for particular areas. Experiments would be done at a variety of scales.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-265
Research Project Priority 2005/06
Timeframe for Project
Actual/Possible Source of Funding
Objectives and Comments
Abalone Industry Development: local assessment and management by industry, integrated into State zonal assessment
Medium FRDC/Various state fishery organisations/ Melbourne University/ State abalone industry associations/ Fisheries Consultants
Objectives involve developing indicators that abalone divers can use to assess stock status at the scale of individual reefs and using these to integrate industry driven local scale assessment and management processes with formal and legislated management arrangements at the zonal scale. Effective, cost-efficient management of abalone fisheries at scales smaller than regions would reduce the risk of over-fishing at small scales and increase the efficiency of harvesting.
FRDC-funded project beginning in 2001 and scheduled to finish in 2005.
Socio-Economic
Economic and social surveys of abalone shareholders
High Not determined Industry/DPI Determine the components underlying the viability of abalone shareholders. Further surveys of shareholders are required to provide updated information. Further development of appropriate surveying would produce information required to develop more robust performance indicators (based on net returns) of economic viability.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page D-266
D6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The role of the FMS is to outline the long term approach to management of the fishery.
Accordingly, the strategy does not include full details for the implementation of some
specific management changes but it must be flexible enough to respond to the risks that may
arise. Ultimately, the strategy will be implemented through various supporting documents
and operational plans, such as the share management plan and research and compliance
strategic plans and the code of practice (abalone fishing), which will establish the specific
mechanisms for implementing and monitoring the changes foreshadowed by the FMS.
Many of the detailed actions will require consultation with stakeholders to obtain the
support that is often necessary to achieve effective implementation and compliance with the
new rules.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-267
CHAPTER E ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE DRAFT FMS This section of the EIS assesses the Draft FMS, as described in Chapter D, to determine whether it
will effectively reduce or mitigate the moderate to high risks associated with the current operation of
the Abalone Fishery identified in Chapter B and ensure that the fishery continues to operate in a
sustainable manner. This chapter is an appraisal of the goals, objectives and management responses
in the draft FMS, and the means by which their performance is to be monitored. Although appraisals
are made of the effectiveness of measures proposed, only by monitoring the implementation of these
measures will it be possible to fully determine whether they are sufficient to reduce risks associated
with the Abalone Fishery.
The role of the FMS is to outline the long term strategies for managing the fishery. Accordingly, the
strategy does not include full details for the implementation of specific management changes, but does
describe the management objectives that are desired. Ultimately, the FMS will be implemented
through various supporting documents and operational plans, such as the share management plan,
research plan and compliance strategic plans, which will establish the specific mechanisms for
implementing and monitoring the changes foreshadowed by the FMS. Many of the detailed actions
will require consultation with affected stakeholders so as to obtain the support that will be necessary
to achieve effective implementation and compliance with the new rules.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-268
E1.0 BIOPHYSICAL ISSUES
E1.1 Outline of the process to assess the potential of the FMS to reduce risk
The aim of this section of the EIS is to describe any changes to the biophysical context of the
Abalone Fishery potentially arising from the implementation of the draft FMS (as described
in Chapter D). This is done by evaluating potential changes to risk from the fishery to
biophysical components identified in Chapter B, with the overall objective of ensuring that
the fishery operates in an ecologically sustainable manner.
As discussed in Chapter B2.1.1, this EIS and its components, particularly the draft FMS and
this assessment of the draft FMS, were written against a specific legislative framework.
Although this framework is broadly consistent with the guidelines for ESD reporting for
Australian fisheries (Fletcher et al. 2002) there are some differences. In particular, the ‘How
to’ Guide (Fletcher et al. 2002) sets performance measures and indicators for each
management response, whereas the draft FMS uses multiple management responses to
achieve goals and objectives, and sets multiple performance indicators to achieve the goal.
The approach used here was to highlight the efficacy of individual management responses
in reducing or mitigating risk to components or sub-components of the biophysical
environment, while also assessing their contributions to reducing the major risks identified
for the existing fishery and their ability to achieve broader goals and objectives.
Those parts of the biophysical environment with sub-components at greater than low risk
from the fishery, their associated issues and common information gaps are summarised in
Table E1.1. Some of the information gaps are related to one or more issues. It is important
to note that many components and issues overlap, as expected, given the complexity of the
marine environment, and that the table is a simplified representation that does not attempt
to create linkages between any components.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-269
Table E1.1 Summary of components of the biophysical environment at greatest risk from
the existing activity and issues and information gaps that the FMS needs to address.
Components at moderate or greater risk
Issues Information gaps (not specific to any particular component)
Target species
- Mature stock
high risk at local scales
moderate risk at general scales
Target species (general)
Potential for concentrations of fishing effort to cause over-fishing
Recovery programs for once productive areas
- Distribution of stock
Illegal fishing
moderate risk at all scales Discarding rates and mortalities
- Size structure
moderate risk at local scales
Other human-induced impacts
- Non-retained
moderate risk at local scales
Bycatch
- Obligate species
moderate risk at local scales
Bycatch
Lack of information and understanding
Lack of information about: size of illegal catch; effectiveness of compliance programs, effectiveness of closures, effectiveness of alternative size limits; effectiveness of recovery programs and their ecological impacts (i.e. from reseeding, translocation and habitat rehabilitation); bycatch; discarding rates, influence of external factors such as water quality, pollution etc.
In assessing the effectiveness of the various management responses within the draft FMS,
the focus is on the ability of each to achieve a reduction in risk to a specific component or
sub-component of the environment. Because of the multi-faceted nature of the management
responses, a response may not reduce risk for one component to which it is directly related,
but could do so for another component.
The key determinants in the potential risk reduction for each management response are the
quality of information that is used in the construction of a management response, and
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-270
whether a management control or regulatory head of power has been identified or is
unspecified. It should be noted that a management response that focuses on the collection of
information does not, on its own, reduce risk. It does, however, provide essential data that
can be used to refine the level of risk which best fits a component and may, where necessary,
provide the foundation for more appropriate and effective management measures.
There are four broad information types used in the development of a management response
– unspecified information, regulation reviews or non-independently validated information,
descriptive information and experimental information (mensurative and/or manipulative).
These different information types can vary considerably in their reliability (accuracy and
variability) and hence when used to develop management responses should be expected to
lead to variable outcomes on actual risk reduction following the implementation of the
management responses.
As a general guide, not specifying the type or source of information means that it cannot be
assessed and can only be reported as offering no risk reduction. Information that has been
collected or independently validated by trained observers or scientific staff as part of a
descriptive monitoring program or experimental study have moderate and major potential
for risk reduction, respectively. Such information is generally of high quality because
robust, scientifically-based sampling protocols minimise, but don’t remove, the possibility of
collecting biased data. It is also noteworthy that it is important that this type of information
is grounded by those with knowledge of the issues to avoid being irrelevant. The quality of
self-reported information is likely to depend on whether the information provider has a
stake in the industry. For example, the information provided by those with an investment
or long-term interest (e.g. through family businesses) in the industry is likely to be in the
bests interest of the resource. Those with little stake in the industry may provide
information that is biased in order to make a gain in the short-term.
Monitoring can be either the routine collection of information about a fishery, such as
weights of landings, lengths and sex of species caught. The information is used to update
resource assessments but does not specifically change management procedures (Sainsbury et
al. 2000). Monitoring can also form part of adaptive management (Walters 1986, Sainsbury
et al. 2000), which sets up management controls to test specific hypotheses about the
effectiveness of alternate management strategies or action. Whatever form of monitoring is
used it is important that there is a review of the information at predetermined frequencies so
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-271
that the effectiveness of management responses can be evaluated and any necessary
adjustments or changes to the activity or the FMS can be done.
A control mechanism is simply a tool of management that is the means by which a
management response will be achieved. Management controls are either output focused or
input focused (Walters and Pearse 1996). Output controls place limitations on how much can
be taken out of a resource, such as quotas. Input controls place limitations on the effort to
catch fish, such as restrictions on number of days fished, gear specifications, size-limits and
closures. Usually a fishery management strategy will use a combination of management
controls because of the complexities of the ecological, economic and social structure of a
fishery.
It is not the aim of this section to appraise every management response in the draft FMS, as
it would become un-necessarily lengthy, responses can affect multiple objectives, and would
shift the focus away from the components at risk from the existing activity. Rather, this
section will appraise the management responses that are directly related to components of
the target species, bycatch, threatened and other species, assemblages and habitat perceived
to be at risk in Chapter B2.
Generally, the ‘consequences’ of potentially adverse effects to components of the biophysical
environment will generally remain unchanged under the draft FMS, but there is potential
for some management responses to reduce the ‘likelihood’ of particular adverse effects
(consequences) occurring and hence some overall risks. Changes to likelihood and
consequence can change overall risk. It is important to note, however, that the assessment of
potential changes to risk is based on the explicit understanding that the actions specified in
the draft FMS will be implemented. Risk reduction requires commitment from DPI and
Industry to fulfil the intent of management responses and implement all of the proposed
changes within the specified timeframes. If circumstances prevent implementation of some
actions then reductions to risk may not occur. For example, further development of the
fishery code of practice is an item of concern, as it is an important control for a number of
issues that mitigate potential risks of the commercial fishery on components of the
environment other than the target species. In its current state, the code is lacking sufficient
detail to be effective. The intent in the FMS to develop an effective code is therefore
extremely important and a failure to do so may present a threat to the sustainability of the
Abalone Fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-272
E1.2 The Target Species
E1.2.1 Changes to Risks Caused by the Operation of the Fishery
A long history of research and an adaptive system of management has been the basis for the
development of sustainable commercial harvesting operations for the Abalone Fishery.
Despite this, some low to moderate risks to key sub-components of the target species were
identified as not being adequately addressed in existing arrangements for the fishery
(Section B2.3.4). A moderate risk from current operations to the distribution, abundance of
mature abalone was identified at general spatial scales and size-structure and non-retained
abalone at local scales. The risk to abundance of mature and non-retained abalone at local
scales was high. Basing management responses toward addressing the issues associated
with these risks and information gaps (Table E1.1) would reduce the risk to the target
species.
The performance indicators and trigger points are assessed in Section E1.6, so the following
assessment will focus on the individual management responses, and whilst acknowledging
the importance of the data collection responses, must assess them in terms of whether or not
they can clearly demonstrate that risk will be reduced. The extent to which the issues and
information gaps (Table E1.1) are addressed by the draft FMS is summarised in Table E1.2.
Table E1.2 Proposed management responses in the draft FMS that aim to directly reduce
risk to the target species. Shaded management responses are those used already in the
fishery.
Management response
(& key feature)
Issue addressed Information gap addressed
1.1b – Code of Practice Discarding
2.1a – Implement TACC and develop harvest strategy 2
Concentrated effort, sustainable harvest, stock building
2.1b – State-wide MLS Protection of spawning stock
2.1c – Monitor landings and effort
Concentrated effort
2 Part of the actions of MR2.1a (i.e. ‘continue to implement a TACC for the fishery’) occur in the existing fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-273
2.1d – Monitor population Concentrated effort
2.1e – Stock assessment Concentrated effort sustainable harvest
2.2a – Alternative size limits Concentrated effort Effectiveness of alternative size-limits
2.2b – Manage spatial distribution of effort
Concentrated effort
2.2c – Strategy for closures Concentrated effort, recovery programs, stock building
Effectiveness of closures
2.2d - Reseeding Stock building Effectiveness of stock building
2.2e - Translocating Stock building Effectiveness of stock building
2.2f – Habitat rehabilitation Stock building Effectiveness of stock building
2.2g – Seasonal closure Recovery programs, stock building
Effectiveness of closures
2.3a – Manage Perkinsus Stock building Effectiveness of stock building
2.3b – Refine estimates of catch from other sectors
Illegal fishing Imprecise estimates of illegal, recreational and Indigenous catches
2.3d – Advise on aquaculture Other human-induced impacts to stock
2.3e – Advise on external impacts
Other human-induced impacts to stock
2.3f –Strategic plan for Region 1 Recovery programs, sustainable harvest
4.1b – Manage diver numbers Concentrated effort, discarding rates, increasing numbers of divers
4.1c – Strategies for adapting to economic and environmental fluctuations
Concentrated effort, recovery programs
6.1a – Research program Stock building All
6.1b – Estimate discard rate Discarding Discarding rates
7.1a – Implement and review Compliance strategic plan
Illegal fishing
7.1b – Prior reporting Illegal fishing
7.2a – Monitor compliance in commercial sector
Illegal fishing
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-274
7.2b – Fit and proper requirements
Illegal fishing
7.2c – Processor requirement Illegal fishing
7.2d – Provision to ban processors
Illegal fishing
7.3a – Industry communication program
Illegal fishing Information about illegal catch
7.3b – Cost benefit assessment of enforcement strategies
Illegal fishing Information about illegal catch
7.3c – Continue with National Docketing System
Illegal fishing Information about illegal catch
8.1a – Improve communication between MAC and Industry and stakeholders
Illegal fishing
8.1b – Improve communication between management and nominated divers
Discarding Information about illegal catch,
8.1e – Encourage Indigenous participation in commercial fishery
Illegal fishing
8.2a – Communicate with community about potential risks to the stock
Other human-induced impacts to stock
8.2c – Communication plan regarding anthropogenic impacts
Other human-induced impacts to stock
The draft FMS retains a number of existing measures from the share management plan for
controlling the impact of the commercial fishery on the target species (Table E2.1). Among
these, the use of the state-wide TACC (MR 2.1a), and associated monitoring of the fishery
and the population (MR 2.1e and 6.1a), and the state-wide minimum legal size (MLS) of 115
mm (MR 2.1b) are probably the most important. These are bound in regulation and
monitored closely for any breaches. As was described in Section B2.3.2 the current MLS
protects the majority of the general population of abalone (~95%) from commercial fishing
and generally about two-thirds of the mature biomass. An on-going stock assessment
program (Section B1.6.1) is the basis for determining a TACC for each fishing period that the
TAC Committee considers to be sustainable (Section B1.8.3).
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-275
Many new management responses in the draft FMS will combine with existing
arrangements to potentially reduce the overall risk of undesirable consequences occurring to
sub-components of the target species requiring more protection. In particular cases where
overall risk is assessed to be reduced, this is because proposed changes to existing
operations are considered to reduce the likelihood of particular adverse events occurring,
although the consequences of particular events would generally remain unchanged (Table
E1.1).
The suite of management responses proposed in the draft FMS builds on the current
arrangements for the commercial fishery to provide for a more effective means of protecting
and rebuilding the stock, where appropriate, yet allowing harvesting to be done with more
flexibility and efficiency. Specific new arrangements considered to have the greatest effect
are described below, while others are discussed generically.
MR 2.1 (a) proposes to continue to implement a TACC but also to develop a set of guidelines
with regard to how the TACC is applied under different circumstances (i.e. a more complete
harvest strategy). This management response is linked to MR 4.1 (c) which proposes
adaptive management for overcoming periods where economic or environmental conditions
are adverse to the industry. A more complete harvest strategy is a key reduction to risk to
the target species as the intent is to develop a set of guidelines based on sustainability that
also allow the fishery to be managed to achieve specific goals, and for Industry to plan
operations more effectively over the medium- and longer-term. Guidelines for the harvest
strategy should combine the use of the TACC with other measures proposed to make
harvesting more efficient and for rebuilding biomass. This should include criteria about
where and when these measures should be used. For example, the size of the TACC can
influence the rate at which the stock recovers from a period of decline and should be
adjusted according to what is desirable at the time. Although trigger points in the share
management plan help guide the TAC Committee with their determination, there are no
guidelines as to how the TACC is to be applied with regard to, for example, rebuilding over
the longer term. The development of such guidelines and strategies will improve the
effectiveness of the TACC as a management tool and should reduce the general likelihood of
overfishing of mature stock at a general scale (Table E1.3).
The harvest strategy will also involve suitable arrangements as to how the TACC is
distributed across the area of operation for the fishery. A state-wide TACC is most effective
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-276
if catches are distributed appropriately. Concentrations of fishing effort that have occurred
at times in recent years in the far south of the state have the potential to increase the risk to
the target species at all scales. A management response proposed for distributing
commercial catches of abalone appropriately (i.e. MR 2.2b) would be an important part of
the overall harvest strategy. The management response has great potential to reduce risk
from commercial harvesting but specific options and details are yet to be determined (see
Section C4.2.1). The appropriate arrangement would have its greatest impact by reducing
the likelihood of risk to the abundance of mature stock and undesirable rates of discarding
at the scale of regions. The harvest strategy, as discussed, and the proposal to manage
potentially undesirable concentrations of effort are also linked to management responses
proposing strategies for harvesting in Region 1 (MR 2.3f) and dealing with Perkinsus (MR
2.3a). These strategies would allow abalone to be harvested in Region 1 without adding to
the overall risk already occurring to populations from Perkinsus.
The harvest strategy as described above would be effective at reducing the likelihood of risk
caused by the commercial fishery to the existing distribution, abundance of mature abalone
and size-structure at generally large-scales (Table E1.3) by increasing protection and
assisting in rebuilding biomass, where appropriate. This would potentially lead to an
overall reduction in risk from the commercial fishery to these sub-components (Table E1.3).
The ability, however, of the measures described above for reducing risks to the target
species at more local scales is limited.
Proposed measures in the draft FMS for reducing the risk posed by the commercial fishery
to the target species at local scales are important because this is where the greatest potential
for impact from harvesting was identified. At this scale, the overall risk of undesirable
consequences from impacts to the abundance of mature stock was considered to be high
under existing operations, and moderate to size-structure and non-retained abalone (Section
B2.3.4). The recommendations in the ‘How to’ guide (Fletcher et al. 2002) suggest areas of
high risk are where management needs to become more effective, although suitable
management is also required where moderate risks occur.
Management responses directed at changing the operation of the commercial fishery at local
scales will offer greater protection to populations of abalone at this scale as well as making
harvesting more efficient. Growth over-fishing (i.e. when too may small abalone are taken,
and therefore too few grow to a size that provides the largest yield from the fishery) and
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-277
recruitment over-fishing (i.e. removing biomass to a level that results in significantly less
recruitment to a fished population) have the greatest potential to occur at places where the
state-wide MLS is inappropriate (Section B2.3.2). The potential of these types of over-fishing
to occur is largely due to a statewide MLS that cannot take into account local variation in
growth of abalone between areas (Section B2.3.1). The abalone fisheries in NSW and WA are
the only states in Australia that do not have variable size limits (although WA has provision
for controlled fish-downs) for different areas (Sections B1.2.2 and C2.0). Although the state-
wide MLS provides appropriate protection to abalone in many areas where growth rates are
average, it may be inappropriate in others. For example, it may be inappropriate in areas
where growth is rapid, and to large sizes, such as the general area between Wonboyn and
the Victorian border, and in areas where growth is slow or populations are prone to
mortality from floods and the majority of individuals in the population have difficulty in
growing to the MLS. A new management response has been proposed to investigate
potential alternatives to the state-wide MLS between Wonboyn and the Victorian border and
at smaller scales across the distribution of the fishery (MR 2.2a). As part of MR 2.2a, an
increase to the MLS between Wonboyn and the Victorian border will be investigated.
Growth rates for the region indicate a general increase in the MLS of abalone in Region 6
would potentially increase the biomass, reproductive output and productivity in the region.
As some populations of abalone in the region, however, would no longer be accessible to the
commercial fishery because of local differences in rates of growth, an increase in the MLS for
the region might need to be combined with controlled fish-downs, so that local populations
within the region could be harvested at a smaller size-limit where appropriate, as is done in
other states (Section C2.0). Flexibility in the MLS in the form of controlled fish-downs of
stunted populations or those in flood-prone areas in other regions of the coast will also be
possible as a consequence of the new management response directed at abalone populations
at local scales. This will allow all of the general population to be harvested and potentially
distribute fishing effort more appropriately than can occur under existing operations.
Changes to MLS, where appropriate, will substantially reduce the likelihood of growth over-
fishing and recruitment over-fishing occurring at local scales, thereby reducing the overall
risk to mature stock and size-structure (Table E1.3). This would also contribute to reducing
the likelihood of impacts to the distribution, abundance and size-structure of abalone at all
spatial scales (Table E1.3). It is acknowledged that a balance will be required between the
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-278
yield benefits from a more refined MLS at a local scale and the complexity and cost of
managing such a system.
Programs for more effective use of closures (MRs 2.2c and g) to commercial harvesting have
potential to reduce adverse impacts from harvesting at local scales. These would assist in
providing more effective protection to the target species where required. Although there is
little documentation of any benefits of closures used in the past, their effective use should
contribute to a reduction in the likelihood of overfishing the mature stock, particularly at
local and regional scales. The guidelines for closures should be prescriptive as to how and
why they are applied, including regard to ecology, the needs of the Industry and effective
policing. The FMS acknowledges the intent of Industry participants to work together, and
with DPI, to pursue voluntary closure mechanisms where appropriate and to develop
objectives and performance indicators for any closure.
Apart from the flexibility of harvesting at different size limits at local scales, and a more
effective use of closures, a number of other management responses (Table E1.2) would
contribute to reducing the likelihood of the commercial fishery having adverse effects on the
target species at local scales, and therefore, the overall risk to mature stock and non-retained
abalone (Table E1.3). Better management of the effects of the commercial fishery at local
scales will not only reduce the risk to the target species at this scale but pass on benefits to
the general population of abalone and potentially lead to increases in the TACC at some
point. Included in the focus at smaller scales is a management response to control the
number of divers (MR 4.1b), and another to develop the fishery code of practice which will
assist in ensuring that abalone divers minimise damage to abalone smaller than the MLS
(MR 1.1b). In addition, there is intent to investigate rates of discarding in MR 6.1b. As this
is mostly about collecting new information, this management response alone would not
reduce the overall risk of discarding. Discarding would, however, likely be minimised in
the draft FMS through further control of fishing effort and diver numbers and development
of the code of practice. This would reduce the likelihood for risk from discarding to non-
retained abalone at local scales from possible to unlikely, but the overall moderate risk
would remain the same at local scales (Table E1.3). Further, the implementation of
experiments to reseed and translocate abalone in up to 1% of suitable reef habitat in NSW
(MRs 2.2d and 2.2e) and to investigate the potential of restoring populations of abalone by
harvesting sea urchins (MR 2.2f) offer considerable potential for reducing the risks from the
commercial fishery or from external factors (e.g. theft of abalone), particularly at local scales.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-279
These techniques, which are also being developed in other states, have the potential to
rapidly reverse any depletion to local populations that may otherwise take decades to
recover naturally, if at all. They are also a potential supplementary management measure to
any broader stock rebuilding strategies. Experimental research investigating the potential
for restoring populations of abalone by harvesting sea urchins, reseeding and translocating
abalone has been done in the past on a small-scale but these were not considered ‘activities’
of the fishery and hence were not assessed in the review of existing operations (Chapter B).
The proposals in the draft FMS, however, would potentially be ongoing and hence need to
be assessed in this part of the EIS as they are proposed to be integrated into the activities of
the fishery.
Despite the obvious benefits of reseeding, translocation and harvesting sea urchins, in terms
of their potential to restore natural populations of abalone and mitigate risks from external
factors, there is also potential for some less obvious adverse effects if activities are not
managed appropriately (see also Section E1.5 for potential effects on other aspects of the
ecosystem). This is particularly so for reseeding and translocation. For example, under both
techniques there is potential for an impact on the genetic diversity of existing populations of
abalone. This is exacerbated by the potential for populations to be genetically dissimilar
over small distances. The movement of abalone from one area to another may spread
disease (e.g. Perkinsus) and pests into areas where they are not naturally present and hence
where there may be no natural resistance. This would also occur in a reseeding program if
hatchery stock became infected.
The scale of proposed experiments (i.e. it is proposed to be restricted to < 1% of available
reef) and assessment of proposals on a case by case basis (i.e. no proposal will be authorised
unless it is approved with regard to the FM Act) indicate these management responses
would be tightly controlled. Regardless, to avoid risks to the environment, further
development of controls and policy (in line with what is done in other states where
enhancement may occur: Vic and WA) and an EIS would be needed before commercial scale
reseeding is be done in NSW.
There are some management responses proposed with the intent of improving
communication and reducing illegal fishing within the commercial sector. Improved
communication would increase efficiencies and reduce the potential for adverse impacts to
the fishery from internal or external sources (MRs 8.1a and b). Although illegal fishing is
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-280
thought to be mostly an external problem (Section B1.2.5) there are measures proposed that
would minimise illegal activity within the commercial sector (MRs 7.1a and b, 7.2a and b).
Considering the limited size of the problem of illegal fishing occurring within the
commercial sector, these management responses would have little effect on risk to the target
species.
Table E1.3. Summary of the potential impacts of implementing the draft FMS on key sub-
components of the target species. Definition of the terms as per Fletcher et al. (2002). Bold
terms indicate where ‘consequences’, ‘likelihoods’ or ‘overall risks’ have changed.
Issue Spatial scale Consequence of activity
Likelihood of activity
Overall risk
Distribution of stock All Moderate Rare Low
Abundance of mature stock
Local
General
Severe
Severe
Unlikely
Rare
Moderate
Low
Population structure
Size-structure
Local
General
Severe
Severe
Unlikely
Unlikely
Moderate
Low
Sex-structure All Minor Remote Low
Non-retained Local Severe Unlikely Moderate
General Severe Rare Low
E1.2.2 Changes to Risks from External Factors
External impacts have a much greater potential to affect the stock of abalone relative to any
impacts from the commercial fishery, particularly when considered from a perspective of
cumulative impact (Section B2.3.3). Consequently, a number of measures are proposed in
the draft FMS for responding to current and potential external impacts to the target species
(Table E1.2). Where it is considered that the impact to the stock from an external factor
cannot be totally prevented (i.e. illegal fishing or Perkinsus), management responses in the
draft FMS aim to mitigate and possibly compensate for the impacts of these factors.
Illegal fishing and Perkinsus are considered to cause a great impact on the target species as
they are known to be the cause of large reductions to populations of abalone at local and
regional scales. The strategies in the share management plan for addressing illegal fishing
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-281
have been retained in this management strategy. For example, MR 7.1b ‘Continue to
implement and review, in consultation with ABMAC and key stakeholders, the compliance
strategic plan and update where appropriate’. To be effective, however, the compliance
strategic plan must have the flexibility to respond where appropriate to new information
about illegal fishing and evolve to allocate the appropriate level of resources to where they
are most needed. Hence, management response MR 7.3b would: ‘Examine the costs and
benefits of increasing effective enforcement to reduce illegal catch and assist in maintaining
the fishery biomass relative to other stock rebuilding measures’, to ensure an appropriate
level of compliance is achieved and that the most effective allocation of resources between
compliance in the commercial sector and the prevention of illegal fishing by unlicensed
operators occurs. This management response was advocated by the TAC Committee (see
Section B1.7) and also indirectly through the review of illegal fishing in NSW (Palmer 2004
and Section B1.2.5.2). Another new management response in the draft FMS that aims to
reduce illegal fishing from unlicensed operators is MR 7.3: ‘To design and implement an
industry communication program to assist in preventing illegal catch’. This management
response involves a partnership between government and the commercial sector. There are
also management responses that would reduce the potential for illegal activities in the
processing sector (MRs 7.2c and d).
Other management responses in the draft FMS that address illegal fishing, and Perkinsus,
involve acquiring information that can be used to develop strategies for reducing the
potential impacts of these factors. For example, a management response for supporting
initiatives for refining estimates of illegal catch will help with development of the
compliance strategy and allocation of resources towards illegal fishing (MR 2.3b).
Management responses that advocate the development a strategy for managing Perkinsus
(MR 2.3a) and harvesting in Region 1 (MR 2.3f) will mitigate the potential effects of further
spread of the disease while potentially allowing sustainable harvesting to occur within the
affected areas.
In addition to minimising the potential for further reductions to populations of abalone in
the future as a consequence of Perkinsus or illegal fishing, other management responses
proposed in the draft FMS focus on restoring populations of abalone that have been
depleted. Whole populations of abalone can be depleted from reefs at a local scale and in
some cases at a larger scale as a consequence of Perkinsus or illegal fishing (see Section
B2.3.3). As abalone larvae mostly disperse over short distances, natural recovery of depleted
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-282
populations is slow and may take many years (Section B2.3.1). The management responses
in the draft FMS for continuing investigations into reseeding (MR 2.2d) or moving abalone
short distances (MR 2.2e) are a means of assisting recovery (see previous section).
Several other potential external impacts were identified in the review of existing operation
(Section B2.3.3). These were legitimate competition for the resource (i.e. by recreational
divers, including Indigenous participants), proposals in the future to create marine reserves,
aquaculture industries and any development that affects the coastal environment. In many
cases proposals that may affect the commercial fishery are assessed by determining
authorities on a case by case basis. Shareholders in the Abalone Fishery have no direct
control of proposals that may have a negative effect on the fishery. The means by which
shareholders can try to minimise potential impacts, as proposed in the draft FMS, is for
shareholders to provide advice and input where appropriate into policy on these matters.
This advice to consent authorities will be in advance of approval and general in nature but
ABMAC can also comment on specific developments. Management responses in the draft
FMS propose that shareholders, through ABMAC, provide advice to the relevant authorities
who control the location and zoning of proposed marine reserves (i.e. marine parks, marine
protected areas etc), aquaculture enterprises and other developments with the potential to
affect populations of abalone (i.e. MRs 2.3c, d and e) and the development of a formal
communication plan (MR 8.2c). The advice can be used where the development of policy is
required or in regard to specific proposals for such developments in the future.
Competition for the resource from other stakeholders was identified as an important
external impact to the commercial fishery, but uncertainty exists as to the size and trend of
the recreational catch. The draft FMS proposes to support initiatives to refine estimates of
the recreational and Indigenous catch of abalone (MR 2.3b). This will have the benefit of
informing policy on future allocation of the resource, and the associated costs of
management, between the commercial and recreational sector (Section B1.3.2.3). It will also
remove some of the uncertainty associated with setting appropriate TACCs for the
commercial fishery (Section B1.8.3).
E1.3 Bycatch Species
The Abalone Fishery is based on direct and selective hand collection of the target species,
but unavoidable collection of some algae and invertebrates known to live on the shell, foot
or mantle cavity occurs, although this is restricted to bycatch occurring on only retained
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-283
abalone (Section B2.4). There is potential that some species have an obligate requirement to
live on the shells of abalone. Although many of these would occur on the large proportion
(~95%) of the stock smaller than the MLS (not available for commercial harvest), there is a
possibility that larger abalone support different or more diverse types of ‘bycatch’ compared
to smaller abalone. This risk to bycatch was considered to be low to moderate under current
operations. Management responses are based on addressing the issues associated with risks
to bycatch and information gaps (Table E1.1).
Table E1.4 Proposed management responses in the draft FMS that aim to reduce risk to
bycatch.
Management response
(& key feature)
Issue addressed Information gap addressed
1.1a – Increase knowledge of bycatch
Lack of understanding Lack of information
1.1b – Code of Practice “ “ “ “
3.1f – Communicate fishery operational plans and policies to Industry
“ “ “ “
6.1a – Research program “ “ “ “
8.1b – Improve communication between management and nominated divers
“ “ “ “
Future research proposed in the draft FMS will evaluate the overall risk of the commercial
fishery on bycatch in more detail by providing the necessary information to understand
bycatch and a monitoring program to help minimise effects from commercial harvesting
(Table E1.4). This will reduce the likelihood of risk to any identified obligate species,
thereby reducing the overall risk to these species from the commercial fishery to low when
implemented. The relevant management responses in the draft FMS (MR 1.1a and 1.1b)
propose a twofold approach. First, to address biodiversity and ecological integrity issues by
proposing to expand and develop an existing program for monitoring the effects of
harvesting abalone on bycatch species and associated habitat and ecosystems as well as
increasing knowledge about potential interactions where information is limited. Second, the
current code of conduct for abalone divers will be extended to a formal fishery code of
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-284
practice. The code will address how divers and deck-hands deal with bycatch, to reduce the
likelihood of potential impacts on species that are found to have obligate requirements for
abalone as a habitat. It is proposed that the code of practice be adaptive to incorporate new
knowledge and techniques as information emerges.
In addition, measures in the draft FMS for reducing the potential for small and large-scale
depletions of the target species (Section E1.2) indirectly address the impact of harvesting on
bycatch. Depletions of populations of abalone by the commercial fishery at various spatial
scales could potentially deplete species of bycatch at those scales. The draft FMS addresses
the potential for such depletions through sound management of fishing effort, potential
changes to the MLS of abalone at regional and more local scales, etc. (Section E1.2.1).
Table E1.4. Summary of the risk from the operation of the fishery on bycatch. Definition of
the terms as per Fletcher et al. (2002). Bold terms indicate where ‘consequences’,
‘likelihoods’ or ‘overall risks’ have changed.
Issue Spatial scale Consequence of activity
Likelihood of activity
Overall risk
Generalist species All Minor Rare Low
Obligate species Local Moderate Rare Low
General Moderate Rare Low
E1.4 Threatened and Protected Species
E1.4.1 Implications of the Draft FMS for Threatened and Protected Species
The risk of the Abalone Fishery having a significant impact upon threatened and protected
species is very small and no specific measures are required. However, the draft FMS
proposes means by which the abalone divers can have a positive impact on threatened and
protected species by enhancing their protection.
The draft FMS aims to minimise the potential for impacts of the Abalone Fishery on
threatened and protected species, and enhance their protection by proposing a management
response to comply with relevant threatened species recovery plans and by developing the
fishery code of practice. The code will reduce the potential for abalone fishing to impact on
threatened or protected species by:
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-285
• providing divers with the means for accessing information about known locations of
populations of threatened or protected species within abalone fishing grounds and
providing abalone divers with new information about threatened or protected
species (including newly discovered populations and any recovery plans as the
information becomes available);
• providing divers with protocols endorsed by ABMAC for harvesting abalone in the
vicinity of areas where threatened or protected species are known to occur;
• requiring divers to report any new sightings of significance of threatened or
protected species, or other major threats to threatened or protected species such as
introduced marine pests, to DPI; and
• requiring divers to ensure that boats are cleared of algae and potential pests before
launching to avoid becoming a potential vector for dispersing marine pests that
would affect threatened and protected species in NSW waters.
In addition, the management response in the draft FMS for ‘developing a program for
closing and reopening areas to harvesting’ will be used in conjunction with the code of
practice in relation to threatened species issues. For example, voluntary fishing closures
could be used as a mechanism for avoiding areas with threatened and protected species
issues.
E1.4.2 Effectiveness of Measures to Protect Threatened and Protected Species
It is clear from the results of the eight-part tests (Section B2.5.5, Appendix B6) that there is
little risk to threatened or protected species from current operations of the Abalone Fishery.
As the fundamental nature of harvesting or area of operation of the fishery would not
change under the draft FMS no specific measures to further protect threatened or protected
species from the fishery are necessary. In fact, proposed management responses in the draft
FMS are likely to enhance the protection of threatened or protected species (see previous
section). The fishery code of practice will reinforce the need for divers to exercise due care
around threatened and protected species and provide divers with the means to receive and
contribute to new information relevant to threatened and protected species and where
abalone are harvested as it becomes available.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-286
E1.5 Other Species, Assemblages and Habitat
Despite limited knowledge of the effects of abalone fishing to components of the biophysical
environment other than the target species it was considered that the overall risk to other
species, assemblages and habitat was generally low under the existing fishery (Section B2.6).
Regardless, some management responses are proposed in the draft FMS to expand and
develop an existing program for monitoring the effects of harvesting abalone on ecosystems
as well as increasing knowledge about potential interactions where information is limited
(Table E1.5). The monitoring program (MR 1a) is proposed to consider the use of the most
appropriate indicator species, the frequency of sampling and possible expansion of
monitoring into more areas closed to commercial fishing to provide data on ‘reference
conditions’. The fishery code of practice will contain details of ‘best practice’ for harvesting
to ensure divers can minimise potential impacts on the ecosystem. It is proposed that the
code of practice be adaptive to incorporate new knowledge and techniques as information
emerges. Management responses for improving communication between managers and
divers (MRs 3.1f and 8.1b) would assist with incorporating and applying knowledge where
it is required. These management responses would probably have little impact to the overall
risk from harvesting to other species, assemblages and habitat.
In addition, depletions of mature stock of abalone by the commercial fishery at various
spatial scales would affect other species, assemblages and habitat. The draft FMS addresses
the potential for such depletions (and risk to other species, assemblages and habitat) through
management of fishing effort, potential changes to the MLS of abalone at regional and more
local scales, etc. (Section E1.2.1).
Management responses with the greatest potential for changing overall risk to other species,
assemblages and habitat are those proposed for restoring populations of abalone by
reseeding and translocating abalone or by harvesting sea urchins (MRS 2.2d-f). As discussed
in Section E1.2.1, these techniques offer considerable potential for rebuilding populations of
abalone at local scales and reducing the risks from the commercial fishery and particularly
from external factors (e.g. theft of abalone) in causing localised depletions. As specific
details for these techniques are yet to be developed it is not possible to assess the risks
associated with each management response precisely. As such, the general assessment of
the risk of each management response to other species, assemblages and habitat given below
is consistent with the level of detail in the proposals.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-287
Table E1.5 Proposed management responses in the FMS that aim to directly reduce risk to
other species, assemblages and habitat.
Management response
(& key feature)
Issue addressed Information gap addressed
1.1a – Increase knowledge of bycatch, other species and ecosystems
Lack of understanding Lack of information
1.1b – Code of Practice “ “ “ “
2.2d - Reseeding Recovery programs Ecological impacts of reseeding
2.2e - Translocating Recovery programs Ecological impacts of translocation
2.2f – Sea urchin harvesting Recovery programs Ecological impacts of habitat rehabilitation
3.1f – Communicate fishery operational plans and policies to Industry
“ “ “ “
6.1a – Research program “ “ “ “
8.1b – Improve communication between management and nominated divers
“ “ “ “
The nature of these management responses is such that potential effects to other species,
assemblages and habitat would be restricted to local scales in most cases. All three of these
management responses for restoring depleted populations of abalone (i.e. reseeding,
translocation and harvesting sea urchins) are proposed to be experimental and confined to <
1% of reef in water depths of < 20 m.
Reseeding, translocation and the harvesting of sea urchins have potential to affect the
existing wild stock, in terms of competition and effects to genetic diversity (as discussed in
Section E1.2.1), but may also affect other trophic levels. It would be precautionary to assume
that as a consequence of restoration, something would change in some level of the
ecosystem, whether it is the food source of abalone, predators, competitors, or some other
interaction. The harvesting of sea urchins, if not managed appropriately, could indirectly
cause rapid changes to assemblages of algae (Sections B2.6.3 and B2.6.4). It is proposed that
this form of restoration is done in conjunction with divers in the Sea Urchin and Turban
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-288
Shell Fishery so that some of the sea urchins harvested from areas are not wasted. Further,
no proposals are to be authorised until approved with regard to the FM Act (this would
potentially include a monitoring program). A review of environmental factors, prepared
according to DIPNR guidelines, must be used to determine whether a separate EIS would be
required before such an activity can be authorised under the FM Act.
The reseeding of reefs with hatchery reared juvenile molluscs and translocation of abalone
between reefs to restore populations raises some issues in relation to adverse impacts on the
ecology of the reef ecosystem. Some of these, as related to the target species, are discussed
in Section E1.2.1. Others are, for example, that the movement of abalone from one area to
another may spread disease and pests that affect other species of molluscs. Also, there
would be potential effects to competitors of abalone if abalone were seeded or translocated
into areas where they were not naturally present or at densities greater than natural levels.
As the intent, however, is to use these techniques to rebuild it is unlikely that such situations
would arise. Rebuilding populations of abalone would potentially restore the ecosystem to
a state closer to how it was prior to any depletions of abalone. The proposed management
for translocation and reseeding is: that no proposals are to be authorised until approved
with regard to the FM Act (this would potentially include a monitoring program). A review
of environmental factors, prepared according to DIPNR guidelines, must be used to
determine whether a separate EIS would be required before such an activity can be
authorised under the FM Act.
The overall risk to food, predators and competitors of abalone and habitat was determined
to be low under the existing fishery (Section B2.6.1-4). This was because abalone generally
were not considered to have a great impact on the ecosystem in which they live. With
appropriate controls, the consequences of experiments to restore populations of abalone that
involved reseeding, translocation and harvesting sea urchins would remain minor (i.e.
‘abalone do not play a keystone role and there would only be minor changes in relative
abundance of other species’; Table A5 of Appendix B5) with no changes to likelihood. As
such, there would be no change to overall risk. The likelihood of translocation would
increase under such proposal to occasional, but this would not change the overall risk from
low.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-289
Table E1.6. Summary of the risk from the operation of the fishery on several aspects of
other species, assemblages and habitat. Definition of the terms in the table as per Fletcher et
al. (2002). NB. Bold terms indicate where ‘consequences’, ‘likelihoods’ or ‘overall risks’ have
changed.
Issue Spatial scale Consequence of activity
Likelihood of activity
Overall risk
Food of abalone All Minor Rare Low
Predators of abalone All Minor Unlikely Low
Competitors All Minor Possible Low
Translocation All Minor Occasional Low
Habitat - Direct effects Local Minor Occasional Low
- Indirect effects
Local
General
Minor
Minor
Occasional Possible
Low
Low
E1.6 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime
The performance reporting and monitoring regime described in Section D4.0 of the draft
FMS is considered to be appropriate in terms of the information requirements and the
suitability of performance indicators and trigger points necessary for monitoring the impact
of the fishery on the target species. These measures are all appropriate to the scale of the
fishery. The research and development plan for the fishery described in Section D5.0 of the
draft FMS lists stock assessment projects as a high priority. Further, the research plan is also
responsive to the new management measures proposed in the draft FMS to reduce risk to
the target species from the operation of the fishery and from external factors. For example,
the research plan proposes projects for rebuilding biomass at local and regional scales and to
address the effects of Perkinsus.
The full performance reporting and monitoring regime for monitoring the impact of the
fishery on other biophysical components of the ecosystem (i.e. threatened, other and bycatch
species, assemblages of species and habitat) is not yet determined. Performance indicators
and trigger points will be developed as information becomes available under a program to
increase knowledge about the effects of the fishery on other biophysical components of the
ecosystem. The research plan is responsive to this need and lists the project as a low priority
relative to other needs of the fishery (Section D5.1). Research on this issue is proposed to be
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-290
done in collaboration with other Institutions. Performance indicators and trigger points for
monitoring the impact of the fishery on other biophysical components of the ecosystem
involve how commercial divers adhere to the relevant sections of the fishery code of
practice. Although the code of practice is potentially an important to for managing the
impact of the fishery on the ecosystem by detailing ‘best practice’ operations for harvesting,
the ability to collect information about breaches of the code is limited.
E1.7 Conclusions
It is expected that the draft FMS will not result in any increase to the risk of impact from the
commercial fishery on biophysical components of the environment. Indeed, it is expected
that the risk of impact to many components would be reduced under the draft FMS. In
particular, moderate to high risks to components of the target species under existing
operations would be reduced under the more complete harvest strategy proposed, and
commitment to developing the fishery code of practice would contribute to a better
understanding and management of the ecosystem in which abalone live. Again, although
appraisals are made of the effectiveness of measures proposed, only by monitoring the
implementation of these measures will it be possible to fully determine whether they are
sufficient to reduce risks associated with the Abalone Fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-291
E2.0 ECONOMIC ISSUES
E2.1 Introduction
It is the NSW Government’s intention to promote a viable commercial abalone fishing
industry, consistent with ecological sustainability and to ensure cost-effective and efficient
management and compliance. A number of measures are proposed in the draft FMS for
achieving these goals and for reducing the risk to economic viability. This section outlines
the potential change to the economic viability of the fishery as a result of implementing the
draft FMS, and draws upon a report on economic issues associated with the NSW Abalone
Fishery prepared by Dominion Consulting Pty Ltd (reproduced in Appendix CR1). The
assessment is predicated on the secure property right established through the statutory
share management arrangements for the fishery, and the continuation of the independent
TACC setting and quota allocation system. That is, these arrangements provide the
foundation for the long term viability of the fishery.
E2.2 Profitability and Productivity in the Fishery
The main drivers of profitability in the fishery come from changes to revenue as a
consequence of changes to beach price or TACC. The draft FMS cannot control beach price
but it does propose a number of measures that aim to reduce the risk of decline to the TACC
and for rebuilding stocks. For example, there are management responses that aim to reduce
illegal catch, manage the effects of Perkinsus, explore the potential of reseeding abalone
(using experimental trials) and alternative size limits.
As noted in Chapter B3, the viability of the fishery is predominantly influenced by the
abundance of harvestable abalone, as reflected in the level of the TACC, and the market
‘beach price’ for abalone. The scale of the fishery, especially when the TACC and/or the
beach price is relatively low, makes the generally fixed costs of business operations and
management disproportionately large, particularly relative to the NSW Abalone Fishery’s
competitors. Shareholders would be expected to be able to meet these costs by adjusting
their business operations provided that revenue did not drop significantly. However, this
may not be the case, at least in the short term, due to the current declining trend in TACC
and recent low beach prices. Consequently, Industry adjustment may be inevitable,
regardless of the management regime put in place.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-292
The draft FMS signals the intent to develop and implement a structured and orderly
approach for structural adjustment in the fishery, with respect to capping and potentially
reducing the number of divers (and associated labour and capital costs). However, the
effectiveness of this response cannot be assessed as the detailed arrangements to achieve this
intent are yet to be determined. (See Chapter C for a description of the broad options under
consideration.)
The draft FMS also includes other responses that should support the viability of the fishery,
particularly with respect to providing greater flexibility for shareholders to adjust to the
variable TACC and beach prices. These responses include reducing the minimum number
of shares that can be traded from 10 to one share, and removing the 6 percent cap on
maximum shareholdings. The response to examine ways to improve Industry’s
preparedness for significant variations in the TACC or beach price may also lead to the
development of more flexible tools, such as potential changes in the setting of the TACC to
dampen the impact of the variability of abalone stocks or the concept of a sinking fund that
could be drawn on during periods of low TACC/prices.
Additionally, the cost-effectiveness of fisheries management services and management
service delivery mechanisms is to be critically evaluated under the draft FMS. The draft
FMS seeks to increase the effectiveness of expenditure in improving long term viability.
The recent change to the method for calculating the community contribution should reduce
the risks to fishery economic viability, through the better linkage the performance of the
fishery and the level of the contribution.
E2.3 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime
The performance reporting and regime for monitoring the economic viability of the fishery
described in Section D4 of the draft FMS is considered to be adequate in terms of the
information requirements and the suitability of performance indicators and trigger points.
The current monitoring regime has proven inadequate because market monitoring of share
and quota transfers has proven difficult due to infrequent transactions, thereby failing to
provide sufficient data to trigger this performance indicator. Lease prices can possibly be
used to supplement share price analysis, but the lease price data is not currently collected in
the fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-293
It is preferable to have a range of economic indicators based on revenue rather than share-
value measures. For example, if beach prices are significantly down, it would be expected
that revenue, and potentially the net return to shareholders, would reduce. Subsequently,
there may be negative impacts in the market for shares.
Although net returns to shareholders and divers would be the preferred measure of
economic viability in the fishery, these require a range of data, of which some is difficult to
collect for reasons of privacy. Examples include information about the payments by
shareholders to nominated divers and the costs to divers of harvesting.
The new measures proposed in the draft FMS for monitoring the economic viability of the
fishery are based on revenue, but also indicate net return. These are catch rate, beach price,
TACC and management charges. These performance measures should reflect the economic
viability of the fishery more directly than indicators related to shares and are likely to
highlight problems immediately so that remedial action can be instigated in appropriate
time-frames.
Monitoring cost effectiveness and efficiency of management services requires the
development of the existing management regime to include additional performance
monitoring. The basis of efficiency and cost effectiveness of management would be the
definition of services to be delivered and the standard required by industry, the client
bearing the cost. These details will be presented in service delivery agreements between DPI
and the abalone industry. Part of these agreements will be performance appraisal. In
fishery management, the performance can be benchmarked against alternative management
regimes in other comparable fisheries.
E2.4 Conclusion
The draft FMS addresses key problems, but is unable to address fundamentals affecting the
economic viability of the fishery such as the trends in market prices for abalone and external
factors affecting the stock. The fishery is significantly affected by variations in the
abundance of harvestable abalone, as reflected in the TACC, and beach prices for abalone,
particularly when low TACCs and prices coincide or prevail for prolonged episodes. For
these reasons, sound management of the stock is important, particularly a policy of
rebuilding harvestable biomass, which should lead to an eventual increase in the TACC.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-294
However, the small size of the fishery limits the funds available for initiatives to enhance
and protect the fishery. The draft FMS shows intent to explore new initiatives in
management and for rebuilding the stock, and to establish an approach for structural
adjustment. The draft FMS also specifies actions to provide greater flexibility for the fishery
and its shareholders to adjust to the variable nature of the TACC and abalone prices, namely
changes in the number of shares that can be traded or held, and potential changes in the way
that the TACC is set or new financial strategies (e.g. a sinking fund). Such proposals are
essential to the economic health of the fishery, whilst noting that in some cases the proposals
are subject to further development. The long term profitability and productivity of the
fishery requires action in the face of Perkinsus, illegal fishing and other external threats.
In summary, fluctuations in market prices for abalone will continue to pose a threat to
operator profitability but are beyond the control of Industry. Shareholders and divers are
expected to adjust their fishing operations and explore alternatives for marketing their
products in order to remain viable. In addition, more effective measures for monitoring the
economic viability of the fishery will give a better understanding of the status of the fishery.
Overall, the current situation for the fishery is expected to improve, as management
responses proposed in the draft FMS should have positive impacts on the overall economic
viability of the fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-295
E3.0 SOCIAL ISSUES
E3.1 Introduction
Social issues arising from implementing a new management plan fall into several categories.
Firstly, there are socio-economic impacts arising directly from how the draft FMS impacts
the resource and consequently the social system in the community. Secondly, the draft FMS
brings changes, with social issues to be addressed by Industry and other groups such as
Indigenous communities. The socio-economic impacts are most readily quantified. Other
measures of the capacity and willingness of Industry or other groups to respond or
incorporate change are more difficult to estimate and require substantial consultation and
communication.
The assessment is constrained by the available information, the resources available to the
study and the lack of adequate background information in this emerging area. This section
outlines the potential change to social issues associated with the fishery as a result of
implementing the draft FMS, as assessed in reports by Dominion Consulting Pty Ltd
(Appendix CR1) and Umwelt Pty Ltd (Appendix CR2).
E3.2 Changes to Risks to Shareholders, Divers, Deckhands and Local Communities
E3.2.1 Employment
Under the share management system the Abalone Fishery directly supports shareholders,
divers and deckhands. Arrangements under the draft FMS are unlikely to create additional
jobs in the catching sector as the total number of divers is proposed to be limited to 42 or
possibly reduced. The abalone processing sector may gain some additional jobs as it is
expected to continue to develop new value added products. The level of employment
would be expected to vary to some degree over time in response to changes in the TACC
and/or beach prices.
Share management has given greater security for the families of share owners and, to some
degree, divers and deckhands. On the death of a shareholder or for any other reason a
shareholder can no longer operate, his/her family can employ a nominated diver and still
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-296
receive an income from the business. If they chose to sell their shares and exit the fishery
they can do so.
The time operated by each diver depends on a range of factors such as skill and experience
and the area being fished. Although the quota system has given more flexibility to when
divers collect abalone, closing and re-opening fishing areas and potential regionalisation of
catch, may require divers to adjust their fishing operations. The impact of any changes will
be dependent on the approach determined (see Chapter C for a description of the options
under consideration).
E3.2.2 Equity Issues
In the design of the share management system there were concerns about the potential for
concentration of ownership. To date these have not been realised. The draft FMS proposes
to remove the current shareholding aggregation limit of 6% (MR 4.2a). Larger shareholdings
would increase the capacity of shareholders to adjust their businesses in response to quota
and market variations and thus maintain economic viability of their businesses.
Many of the young divers may be able to run their diving as a viable business and can invest
in shares themselves through time, but they may not become endorsement holders unless
they buy an existing shareholding of 70 or more shares with an attached endorsement. The
economic survey indicates divers will not be able to gain entry to ownership from providing
diving services in the current climate. Not having this incentive of ownership even in the
future, risks having a fishery where divers are short term in perspective and may be open to
malpractices as a way to get ahead. Mechanisms to enable diver numbers to reduce through
adjustment out of the fishery are improved in the Draft FMS, although the details are to be
determined.
Sharing resources between the commercial and other sectors (e.g. recreational and
Indigenous) is likely to be an issue which needs to be addressed (See also Section E3.3).
However, this is beyond the scope of this EIS.
E3.2.3 Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement
The black market for illegally harvested abalone is lucrative and may involve suppliers,
handlers, buyers and distributors. The draft FMS proposes management responses that
should have a positive impact on controlling illegal activities in the fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-297
In addition, greater involvement of shareholders and divers in developing and
implementing fishery policies should create a stronger incentive for divers to be more
responsible and accountable for their behaviour in conducting fishing operations and hence
increase compliance in the fishery.
E3.3 Changes to Risks to Indigenous Peoples
E3.3.1 Traditional Fishing and Access
There is minimal potential for commercial diving activities described in the draft FMS to
impact on Aboriginal archaeological sites. In general, the physical evidence of past
Aboriginal occupation along the NSW coast is severely threatened by land uses and
activities other than abalone fishing. For example, many large midden sites along the coast
(principally on estuarine shorelines) were exploited for lime in the nineteenth century, and
sometimes also for road base. Many sites have also been destroyed by agricultural land
uses, and urban and tourist development, as well as ongoing and/or accelerated coastal
erosion.
There is no evidence of impacts of abalone diving on gazetted Aboriginal Places or
traditional Aboriginal community fishing sites (cultural fishing). The measures to enhance
Aboriginal participation in ABMAC and improve communication between the commercial
sector and the Aboriginal community on the south coast will help to improve awareness of
any interactions with places of cultural value, so that appropriate management strategies
can be developed where necessary. Although the risk of abalone diving to Aboriginal sites
and places is very small, the draft FMS offers potential to further reduce any impacts.
Apart from measures to protect abalone stocks, the fishery code of practice, which
accompanies the draft FMS, identifies two actions directly relating to Aboriginal sites and
places.
1. Be aware of known locations of items and sites of significance to Indigenous people
and become aware of newly discovered locations as this information becomes
available.
2. Harvest around the location of items and sites of significance to Indigenous people in
an appropriate manner that respects the value of the items and sites to Indigenous
people.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-298
E3.3.2 Community Well Being
The Indigenous Fisheries Working Group (IFWG) estimates that 80% of Aboriginal people
on the NSW south coast are unemployed. This situation clearly poses serious stresses on all
aspects of community wellbeing. Although the community social issues cannot be
attributed to a significant extent to fishery regulation, and specifically to the management of
the Abalone Fishery, there are currently clear contributing factors such as definition and
enforcement measures for bag limits and lack of current employment in the commercial
abalone sector.
The draft Abalone FMS offers some measures that can contribute to the resolution of these
very large community concerns. Enhanced Aboriginal participation in ABMAC and
encouragement into the commercial fishery, particularly if supported by DPI, to foster
information transfer to local Aboriginal communities should help overcome significant
social and economic conflicts. Improved communication, improved cultural awareness and
improved resource information should also help to create the conditions where other skill
development and business/employment relationships can gradually be developed.
Similarly, fostering understanding by Indigenous communities of the commercial harvest
sector should lead to a long-term increase in the skills and experience in the community
relating to the management and harvest of the abalone resource.
If effectively implemented, the draft Abalone FMS offers a reduced risk to Aboriginal
community well being than is currently the case. However, some of the issues contributing
to poor community well being are outside the scope of any individual FMS and require
broader policy consideration by governments and communities.
E3.3.3 Indigenous Fisheries Strategy
The Implementation Plan that accompanies the Indigenous Fisheries Strategy (IFS) identifies
actions for 2003 and 2004, and the progress towards priority actions is monitored by the
IFWG. The contribution of the IFWG extends well beyond the Indigenous Fisheries Strategy
itself and includes advice on the development, consultation process and implementation of
fishery management strategies in all sectors. The IFWG plays a pivotal role in supporting
Indigenous community participation in fishery management.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-299
Relevant actions from the IFS Implementation Plan that will help to promote ecologically
sustainable and culturally appropriate practices in the Abalone Fishery as noted below,
together with an indication of the extent to which the draft FMS adopts this approach.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-300
Table E3.1. IFS input to draft Abalone FMS
IFS Action Comment
Develop and facilitate a model for community input to fishery management planning (and marine park management) and progressive involvement in fishery management strategies (to be completed in 2004).
Current IFWG suggestions for a regionally based “expert panel” approach to community consultation have not yet been adopted. However, the draft FMS does recognize the need for changes to the level of support for Aboriginal community representatives on ABMAC.
Review current Indigenous cultural access to fisheries, review options with IFWG and prepare advice after reviewing input from communities.
IFWG contributes substantially to Indigenous input to this assessment. Improved Indigenous participation in ABMAC could contribute to greater support from Industry for a more culturally sensitive allocation of bag limits (and simpler permit systems), and application of enforcement measures. It may, over time, also open the way for new employment partnerships. Other aspects of Indigenous access to traditional resources are outside the area of influence of the draft FMS.
Cultural awareness training for all existing DPI staff, all management advisory committees and new DPI staff (as part of Induction).
Draft FMS supports awareness raising activities and recognises that these need to be ongoing.
Project manager to identify strategies to maintain levels of Indigenous involvement in commercial fishing. This is a very high priority for the IFWG.
The poor level of Aboriginal community participation in the commercial Abalone Fishery has been noted, as has the history of licence allocation. The draft FMS does not directly address Aboriginal employment in the commercial sector, but may create circumstances where this becomes feasible.
Review aquaculture and commercial fishing opportunities, consult with IFWG and prepare advice to communities on the skills required to sustain these businesses.
Draft FMS acknowledges need for skill enhancement for Aboriginal community to increase participation in fishery management as well as commercial fishing. Improved communication about resource constraints is also critical.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-301
E3.4 Changes to Risks to Heritage
With low risk to historic heritage from current operations, the appropriate responses in the
draft FMS relate to procedures for monitoring shipwrecks (for instance locations, frequency
and consequence) and reporting any incidents that do occur.
The operation of the Abalone Fishery presents an opportunity to reduce the risk to historic
heritage by contributing to improved spatial data about the locations of shipwrecks. This is
proposed through the fishery code of practice. Abalone divers may from time to time
encounter shipwreck remains on the sea floor. When divers encounter shipwreck remains
they could report location (GPS co-ordinates, water depth) and any other information they
detect about the structure to the NSW Heritage Office and DPI. This information would be
added to the data base, so that all divers can be alerted about potential obstacles on the sea
floor (with heritage and safety implications), and the Heritage Office will have more
accurate information about the location of shipwrecks.
To assist awareness of abalone divers of the potential for historic shipwrecks to be
encountered in their routine activities, shareholders and divers will be provided (through
the code of practice (abalone fishing)) with basic information about their responsibilities
under the Heritage Act (1977), including the provisions relating to damage to structures,
exclusion zones and collection of any historic artefacts that may be observed.
E3.5 Changes to Health Risks to Divers and Consumers
E3.5.1 Divers
Diver safety will be given particular consideration within the draft FMS (Chapter D)
through the fishery code of practice. The code has potential to incorporate
recommendations regarding minimum safety standards, including safe diving and boating
practices that could reduce the danger to divers and deckhands.
E3.5.2 Consumers
Although the health risk to consumers is minimal, the fishery code of practice will have
specific provisions relating to handling practices to ensure the product is treated
appropriately. Protocols for maintaining hygiene and cleanliness, keeping good records and
keeping products cool will be applied to the handling of abalone in the catching and
processing sector.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-302
E3.6 Assessment of Performance Reporting, Monitoring and Research Regime
The performance reporting and regime for monitoring social issues in the fishery described
in Section D4 of the draft FMS is considered to be adequate in terms of the information
requirements and the suitability of performance indicators and trigger points.
The key social issues that require monitoring are:
• Appropriately sharing abalone resources (Goal 5);
• Indigenous issues; and
• Heritage issues.
The abalone resource should be shared by resource users in a way that minimizes negative
social and economic impacts in the fishery (Goal 5). Although the abalone resource is
currently exploited by commercial, recreational and Indigenous divers, there is little
information about how the catch is shared between sectors. This will change with the
development of the Indigenous Fishing Strategy and Implementation Plan and the research
proposal in the draft FMS for improving estimates of recreational and illegal catch.
Performance reporting of the minimisation of conflict between sectors requires feedback
from different sectors represented on ABMAC. The performance of Industry in recognising
culturally significant areas requires communication with the Indigenous groups. The draft
FMS proposes to improve communication between the commercial sector and other sectors.
The fishery code of practice is one of the major monitoring initiatives in the draft FMS. It is
adaptive to the needs of the fishery. For example, including new information on heritage
and culturally significant areas as it becomes available. Performance reporting is based
primarily of self assessment by the Industry but also by DPI as the regulatory authority
under which the fishery is occurring.
E3.7 Conclusion
The Review of Existing Operations (Chapter B) identified some social risks from current
operations, including: illegal fishing and marketing activities; reduced employment
opportunities; limited alternative employment opportunities; and other risks related to
health and safety risks, conflicts, non-compliance, equity and the well-being of Indigenous
communities. Most of these risks will be reduced under the draft FMS. For example, illegal
fishing and marketing activities are likely to reduce as the draft FMS proposes to increase
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page E-303
monitoring of illegal activities and increase penalties. An internal industry communication
program to report illegal catch is proposed as well as new requirements for processors.
The fishery code of practice will be a major tool in reducing social risks as it will cover areas
such as health and safety of divers and culturally and historically sensitive objects and
places.
The risk of increasing conflicts is likely to reduce as the FMS proposes to manage the fishery
in a manner consistent with the Indigenous Fisheries Strategy. The draft FMS proposes to
increase awareness among commercial abalone divers about traditional cultural values, and
ensure specific consultation occurs with Indigenous stakeholders and interested groups in
the fishery. Some conflicts, however, with other resource users such as recreational and
Indigenous divers may still need to be addressed at a broader policy level than this FMS.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-304
CHAPTER F JUSTIFICATION OF PREFERRED OPTIONS IN THE DRAFT FMS Earlier chapters have described the operation of the Abalone Fishery in NSW in relation to mode of
operation and management, and risks associated with the fishery as it currently operates and is
proposed to operate under the draft FMS.
This chapter provides an overview of how the fishery is proposed to operate and presents a
justification of the preferred strategy.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-305
F1.0 THE NEED FOR THE ABALONE FISHERY
This section examines the need for undertaking the fishing activity proposed in the draft
Fishery Management Strategy (FMS) and the consequences of not undertaking the activity.
The Abalone Fishery exists because it satisfies a number of significant community needs,
each of which is discussed below.
Should the Abalone Fishery not continue, some of the resources used by the fishery would
become available to other users, or would contribute to ecological processes in reef
environments. However, abalone can not be legally taken by other commercial fisheries in
NSW and it is unlikely that increased catches by other resource harvesters would offset the
loss of product if the Abalone Fishery ceased to operate.
F1.1 Economic Considerations
The value of the Abalone Fishery at point of first sale is in the order of $10 million per year,
which varies annually according to the TACC and the beach price. The processing sector
has a turnover of between $10 - 20 million per year. As the fishery and most of the
processing sector is located on the south coast of NSW, this provides a significant input to
the economy of the region and has multiplier effects. All businesses contribute to the local
economy through the purchase of inputs needed for harvesting and processing. In addition,
shareholders pay a community contribution for privileged access to a community resource.
The economic survey conducted during the preparation of this EIS, and other studies
undertaken on the expenditure of commercial operators in NSW (see McVerry, 1996), have
shown that around 27% of expenditure from fishing businesses moves outside the region of
operation. Therefore approximately 73% of the first sale value of the catch stays within the
communities where fishing takes place. This translates to approximately $5.5 million of
fishing revenue generated from the Abalone Fishery that was potentially spent locally in
2003.
F1.2 Employment Considerations
As at February 2005 there were 48 fishing businesses in NSW with shareholdings in the
Abalone Fishery, comprising approximately 34 divers and 37 deckhands. This is a total of
119 people employed directly on a full time or part time/casual basis in the harvesting
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-306
sector of the Abalone Fishery. It has been estimated that the processing sector employs 106
people, giving a total of 225 people directly dependent on the fishery.
Although more investors are becoming shareholders in the Abalone Fishery, the abalone
harvesting community tends to focus around key ports on the south coast such as Ulladulla,
Batemans Bay and Eden, where unemployment rates are generally higher than in the larger
cities. The presence of abalone divers and processors in a port also encourages the
development of significant infrastructure for the supply of fuel, vessel maintenance and
transport of product. The people employed in such businesses are at least partly dependent
on the fishery. Studies of employment flow-on effects indicate that for each job created in
the Abalone Fishery, approximately 1.5 jobs are created in the broader community, so the
Abalone Fishery contributes indirectly to the employment of more than 111 people on either
a full time or part time/casual basis in NSW.
F1.3 Supply of Seafood
Over the last ten years, the Abalone Fishery has provided, on average, about 300 tonnes of
abalone annually for general consumption, although in recent years the TACC has declined
to 206 tonnes for 2004-05 fishing period. Most of the abalone are exported to Asian markets
and less than 10% is consumed locally. The supply of abalone to local markets by
commercial divers satisfies demand from Australian consumers who do not wish to, or are
unable to, venture out and catch abalone themselves. The NSW Abalone Fishery supplies
mostly live abalone with only a small proportion of the catch canned, frozen on shell, par-
boiled on shell, chilled or sold as frozen meat, depending on demand at the time for a
particular product.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-307
F2.0 JUSTIFICATION OF MEASURES IN THE DRAFT FMS IN
TERMS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) was defined under the National Strategy for
ESD as “development that improves the total quality of life, now and in the future, in a way
that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends“. It can be achieved through the
following principles and programs described in Section 6(2) of the NSW Protection of the
Environmental Administration Act 1991:
• Precautionary principle;
• Intra-generational equity;
• Inter-generational equity;
• Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; and
• Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.
The Abalone Fishery collects a single species using a single method and is managed by a
combination of input and output controls, including restricted entry, a total allowable
commercial catch (TACC) and a minimum legal size limit.
The draft FMS (Chapter D) proposes objectives and management responses for the fishery
under eight broad goals, having regard to the risks identified in the existing management
regime (i.e. Part II of Chapter B). The preferred suite of rules (including management
objectives and responses) contained within the draft FMS provides for appropriate
allocation of the resource and incorporates the controls necessary to achieve ecological
sustainability.
The draft FMS provides a broad framework for managing the Abalone Fishery that describes
programs to be implemented under each of the eight broad goals; some of which are
immediate actions, others are longer term programs with a development or investigation
stage and a need to undertake further stakeholder consultation built in. For these longer
term programs, it is often inappropriate for the draft FMS to develop fine details at this
stage, because further information would be acquired through time and conditions may
change. In order to ensure that the fishery operates in an ecologically sustainable manner
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-308
into the future and the risks are meaningfully reduced, it will be important to ensure that the
strategies and plans that are subsequently developed under the FMS are implemented to
fulfil the goals and objectives for the fishery and that Industry and regulators are flexible
enough to adapt the FMS to changes. With this qualification, it can be stated that the draft
FMS addresses the principles of ESD as discussed below.
F2.1 Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle is defined in the May (1992) Intergovernmental Agreement on
the Environment as:
“where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation” (Deville and Harding, 1997)
The introduction of the precautionary principle has, as described by Deville and Harding
(1997), shifted the ‘onus of proof’ regarding impacts away from regulatory bodies and more
towards those whose actions may cause damage. Those undertaking the activity are
required to justify conclusions that the activity will not have serious or irreversible impacts
on the environment, which exceed the long-term benefits of the action (Deville and Harding,
1997).
As recognised in the assessment guidelines under which the EIS was prepared (Appendix
A2), scientific research into the size and characteristics of shellfish and finfish stocks is
inherently complex and costly. Shellfish and finfish populations and the aquatic
environment inhabited by them are extremely dynamic. This means that the level of
scientific uncertainty associated with shellfish and finfish stocks and aquatic communities is
generally high, especially for species that are of low commercial or recreational value. This
situation is by no means unique to NSW or indeed Australian fisheries. It is important to
note, however, the considerable resources that are currently being contributed by abalone
shareholders and the NSW government to the existing stock assessment process for the
abalone resource in NSW (including extensive monitoring and modelling of the resource).
Many of the management rules that have been applied to the Abalone Fishery, such as using
minimum size limits and setting a TACC, have been adopted on a precautionary basis to
provide an ‘insurance policy’ against over exploitation. For example, under the Fisheries
Management Act 1994 the TAC committee is required to take a precautionary approach in
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-309
setting the total allowable catch. The measures proposed in the draft FMS embrace this
approach by continuing the existing controls on fishing and by proposing new initiatives to
deal with the uncertainty surrounding the impact of abalone harvesting on incidental
species and habitat. For example, developing a code of practice is a positive precautionary
step that will minimise the impacts (known and presumed) of abalone harvesting on the
environment. Additionally, the research programs proposed to investigate the impacts of
removing abalone above the minimum legal size on associated species and ecosystems pro-
actively address the information deficiencies in those areas.
The performance monitoring system established by the draft FMS also provides a necessary
safeguard in case there are changes in either the operation of the fishery or stock levels,
which could compromise the long term sustainability of the fishery.
F2.2 Intragenerational Equity
Intragenerational equity requires that the costs and benefits of pursuing ESD strategies are
distributed as evenly as practicable within each generation (i.e. within the Abalone Fishery
but also among the fishery and other parts of the community).
Intragenerational equity in the context of the Abalone Fishery is not as complex as many of
the other commercial fisheries in NSW. It is a single species fishery and abalone cannot be
taken legally by other commercial fisheries in NSW. As no other species are to be taken for
commercial sale by the fishery there is no conflict with other commercial fisheries. Abalone
are taken by other user groups, however, such as recreational and Indigenous divers. The
Department of Primary Industries has an Indigenous Fishing Strategy and a permit can be
issued that allows Indigenous people to exceed the recreational bag-limit if abalone are to be
collected for special cultural events. There are fisheries for the same species of abalone in
the other southern states. Apart from the issue of allocation of the resource, there is little
overlap between the activities of the users (i.e. commercial fishing, recreational fishing,
boating, swimming etc.).
Citizen participation in developing and implementing government policies can (1) improve
relationships between stakeholders, which can increase their ability to work together toward
management objectives; (2) increase the capacity of citizens or agencies to participate
constructively in management by providing them with skills, experience, or knowledge; or
(3) change beliefs, attitudes, or behaviour to help management processes occur more
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-310
smoothly. The Commonwealth and NSW State legislations require public consultation in
the preparation of fishery environmental assessments. The EIS (including the FMS) process
included public consultation and the FMS document promotes “… adequate stakeholder
involvement and community consultation”.
If the eight broad goals of the draft FMS are realised, the current generation would have the
same or improved opportunities to benefit from the valuable abalone resource. Some
management measures proposed within the draft FMS to achieve these goals, and hence
intragenerational equity, include:
• Proposals to update and refine estimates of the size of the total catch of abalone
(including recreational, Indigenous and illegal catches) so that the distribution of the
resource is known, and performance measures are to be put in place to monitor and
manage the distribution of catches over time.
• Continuing to ensure that the Abalone Management Advisory Committee (ABMAC)
communicates effectively with all stakeholders in the fishery. ABMAC has a central
role of communicating the needs of all the stakeholders in the abalone resource and
can provide the means of facilitating arrangements that may increase opportunities
and education as required to particular stakeholder groups. The draft FMS proposes
that Indigenous representation on ABMAC is made more effective so the needs of
this group are communicated more effectively.
The measures in the draft FMS distribute, as far as practicable, a fair and equitable sharing of
the fisheries resource amongst the commercial sector, within broader resource sharing
arrangements. Limiting the total catch in the fishery is important to both avoiding
overexploitation and appropriately sharing the resource among commercial divers and
other legitimate users. The TAC Committee sets a TACC annually, following consideration
of the most recent estimated weights of recreational (including Indigenous) and illegal
abalone catches. Individual transferable quotas are allocated to shareholders in the
commercial fishery in proportion to the number of shares held. The operation of the fishery
provides fresh local seafood to satisfy an ever increasing consumer demand for seafood,
particularly a high value species, such as abalone. Fishing closures, such as those in marine
parks and aquatic reserves, share the resource between users and the community by
specifying areas where harvesting may or may not occur.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-311
The cross-jurisdictional liaison, and the development of a code of practice proposed in the
draft FMS all promote equity of access to the physical environment used by abalone divers
and others in the community. Additionally, being a category 1 share managed fishery,
abalone shareholders are required to make a periodic contribution to the community for
their right to access a community owned resource.
F2.3 Intergenerational Equity
Intergenerational equity requires that the health, diversity and productivity of the
environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.
In the context of the Abalone Fishery, intergenerational equity consists of ensuring the
fishery operates in a manner that minimises the impact to habitat, bycatch and threatened
species, populations and ecological communities, as well as maintaining abalone stocks at
sustainable levels for future generations.
The eight broad goals proposed in the draft FMS, would provide future generations with at
least the same and hopefully improved opportunities to benefit from the valuable natural
resources which the current generation enjoys. Some management measures proposed
within the draft FMS to achieve these goals, and hence intergenerational equity, include:
• Development of a fishery code of practice to address issues such as best practice
techniques, handling of bycatch, reporting of interactions with threatened or
protected marine species, regard for heritage items etc.
• Continued setting of a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for abalone annually
by an independent Total Allowable Catch Setting and Review Committee to protect
an appropriate amount of biomass and use of a state-wide minimum legal size to
protect an appropriate amount of mature stock.
• Changing the limits of capacity of the fishery including an increase to the limit of
aggregation of shares to individual shareholders and the means for controlling the
number of divers to promote economic viability.
• Continued development and review of the compliance strategic plan including new
measures for deterring illegal activity in the post-harvest sector.
• Development of a research plan that responds to the current and future needs of the
fishery.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-312
• Development of a performance monitoring and review program, the results of which
will be publicly available.
Abalone shareholders are free to sell their licences and quota to any eligible fishing business,
or individual which enables transfers to be made between generations. In addition, there
will be substantial benefits to future generations from the recent and continued declaration
of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine protected areas (such as
marine parks, aquatic reserves and intertidal protected areas) that include a full range of
marine biodiversity at ecosystem, habitat and species levels.
F2.4 Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecological Integrity
This principle incorporates the notion that conservation of biological diversity and
ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in resource decision making.
The draft FMS strongly adopts this principle. The impact of the Abalone Fishery upon
biophysical aspects of the marine environment has been assessed in the EIS by an initial
analysis of the risks associated with the existing management regime. The risks associated
with the Abalone Fishery are partitioned into two components related primarily to (1) the
retained species and (2) the ecological impacts of the harvest methods used in the fishery on
bycatch and associated species, threatened and protected species and habitat. These risks
have been fully reviewed and discussed in Chapters B and E.
In addition, one of the eight major goals in the draft FMS is to ‘manage commercial
harvesting of abalone to promote the conservation of biological diversity in the coastal
environment’. Within this goal there are two management responses addressing the
objective to ‘increase knowledge and minimise any adverse impacts of harvesting legal-
sized abalone on bycatch, associated habitats and ecosystems’. The management responses
directly address biodiversity and ecological integrity issues by proposing to expand and
develop an existing program for monitoring the effects of harvesting abalone on bycatch
species and associated habitat and ecosystems as well as increasing knowledge about
potential interactions where information is limited. In addition, the draft FMS proposes that
a code of practice be developed to incorporate ‘best practice’ harvesting techniques for
minimising the impact of harvesting abalone on non-retained individuals, bycatch species
and associated habitat and ecosystems and procedures for minimising the spread of diseases
of abalone such as Perkinsus. The code of practice would be adaptive to incorporate new
knowledge and techniques as information emerges. The code would also include
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-313
information about the whereabouts of threatened species within abalone fishing grounds
and provision for divers to report on new sightings as they occur.
In conclusion, the draft FMS contains a comprehensive and appropriate package of
measures for ensuring that the impacts of the commercial Abalone Fishery on biodiversity
are properly managed.
F2.5 Improved Valuation, Pricing and Incentive Mechanisms
This principle relates to the use of schemes including user pays and incentive structures to
promote efficiency in achieving environmental goals. The Abalone Fishery is a category 1
share management fishery subject to full cost recovery. In addition, shareholders in the
fishery pay a periodic community contribution for their right of access to the fishery, in
addition to licensing and management fees. The share management plan for the fishery
came into effect in 2000 providing shareholders with a statutory basis for the future of their
fishery as well as objectives, performance indicators and trigger points (to be reviewed and
updated following finalisation of the FMS) with the aim of ensuring that the fishery remains
ecologically sustainable and economically viable. This management framework has
provided for the issue of long term shares that are renewed automatically, with statutory
compensation payable if shares are cancelled. It has also provided for a market based
trading scheme of shares. The share management scheme for the Abalone Fishery has
provided greater incentives for stewardship and long term sustainability of the resource
because the value of shares when traded are generally linked to investors’ views about the
health of the fishery and the anticipated returns on investment.
Industry members and DPI have been concerned over the economic viability of the Abalone
Fishery in recent years (reflected by a decrease in net return to shareholders) and there are a
number of management measures in the draft FMS which aim to promote long term
economic viability of abalone fishing. These include:
• Removal of the limit on the aggregation of shares by individual shareholders to
allow fishing businesses to raise their shareholdings to a greater level if necessary to
remain economically viable.
• Limiting the number of divers in the fishery to reduce the potential for economic
inefficiencies, although the means to achieve this are yet to be determined.
• Introducing more cost-effective technological changes to the catch return system.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-314
• Refinement of service delivery through ‘service delivery agreements’ between
providers and recipients.
• A review of established cost recovery arrangements in view of updated information
and the current needs of the fishery.
• Development of a code of practice (abalone fishing) for promoting ‘best practice’
harvest and post-harvest techniques to ensure best returns per kilogram.
• Performance measures of fishing businesses, based on net returns, to monitor trends
in commercial viability.
• Arrangements (to be developed) for more efficient use of divers.
• Development of strategies to better enable industry to plan for and adjust to
significant variations in the TACC and/or changes in beach prices for abalone.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page F-315
F3.0 CONCLUSION
The NSW Abalone Fishery harvests a valuable marine resource that makes a significant
contribution to the economy and social structure of the State. The fishery is currently based
on a rigorous management regime. The ongoing operation and management of the fishery,
as proposed in the draft FMS, is clearly justified in terms of protecting the natural
environment, maintaining and hopefully enhancing the stock and protecting the interests of
participants in the fishery and the community at large.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-316
CHAPTER G REFERENCES
ABARE (2003). Australian Fisheries Surveys Report 2003. Australian Bureau of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, Canberra ACT Australia.
ABARE (2004). Australian Fisheries Surveys Report 2004. Australian Bureau of Agricultural
and Resource Economics, Canberra ACT Australia.
Ambrose, R.F., Schmidt, R.J. and C.W. Osenberg. (1996). Predicted and observed
environmental impacts – can we foretell ecological change? pp. 345-369 In: R.J. Schmitt
and C.W. Osenberg (Eds). Detecting Ecological Impacts – Concepts and Applications
in Coastal Habitats. Academic Press, California. 401pp.
Andrew, N.L. and A.L. O’Neill. (2000). Large-scale patterns in habitat structure on subtidal
rocky reefs in New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research 51: 255-263.
Andrew, N.L. and A.J.U. Underwood (1992). Associations and abundance of sea urchins
and abalone on shallow subtidal reefs in southern Australia. Australian Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 1547-1559.
Andrew, N.L., Worthington, D.G., Chick, R.C., Brett, P.A. and Y. Chen. (1996). An
assessment of the abalone fishery in 1996. NSW Fisheries internal report.
Andrew, N.L., D.G. Worthington and P.A. Brett. (1997). Size structure and growth of
individuals suggest high exploitation rates in the fishery for blacklip abalone, Haliotis
rubra, in New South Wales, Australia. Molluscan Research 18: 275-287.
Andrew, N.L,. Reid, D.D. and J.J. Murphy (1998). Estimates of the 1997 recreational abalone
harvest in NSW. Internal Report, NSW Fisheries Research Institute, January 1998.
Andrew, N.L., D.G. Worthington, P.A. Brett, N. Bentley, R.C. Chick and C. Blount. (1998b).
Interactions between the abalone fishery and sea urchins in New South Wales. NSW
Fisheries’ Final Report Series No. 12, 108 pp.
Babcock, R. and J. Keesing. (1999). Fertilisation biology of the abalone Haliotis laevigata:
Laboratory and field studies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:
1668-1678.
Bower, S. M. (2000). Infectious diseases of abalone (Haliotis spp.) and risks associated with
transplantation. Fish Aquat Sci 130: 111-122.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-317
Brown, L.D. and N.D. Murray. (1992). Population genetics, gene flow, and stock structure in
Haliotis rubra and Haliotis laevigata. In S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner and S.A. Guzman
del Proo [ed.] Abalone of the world: Biology, fisheries and culture. Fishing News
Books, Oxford.
Buckley, R.C. (1990). Environmental science and environmental management. Search 21: 14-
16.
Chu, F.L.E and R.C. Hale. (1994). Relationship between pollution and susceptibility to
infectious disease in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Marine Environmental
Research 38:243-256.
Conod, N., J.P. Bartlett, B.S. Evans and N.G Elliot. (2002). Comparison of mitochondrial and
nuclear DNA analyses of population structure in blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra Leach.
Marine and Freshwater Research 53: 711-718
Day, R.W. and A.E. Fleming. (1992). The determinants and measurement of abalone growth.
In S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner and S.A. Guzman del Proo [ed.] Abalone of the world:
Biology, fisheries and culture. Fishing News Books, Oxford.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR). (2003). Guidelines
for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Draft Fishery Management Strategies for
the Commercial Abalone and Rock Lobster Fishing Activities. February 2003.
(Appendix A3).
Department of Primary Industries (DPI). (2004). Ocean Trawl Fishery Environmental
Impact Statement, Volume 1 – public consultation document. NSW Department of
Primary Industries, Cronulla.
Department of Primary Industries (DPI). (2005). Abalone Share Management Fishery: NSW
Department of Primary Industries Submission to TAC Committee 2004.
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE). (2001). Assessing the
ecological sustainability of the Tasmanian Abalone Fishery. Report prepared for
Environment Australia.
Deville, A. and R. Harding. (1997). Applying the precautionary principle. The Federation
Press, Sydney, 79pp.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-318
Egloff, B.J. (1981). Wreck Bay: An Aboriginal Fishing Community. Australian Institute of
Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
Fletcher, W.J., J. Chesson, M. Fisher, K.J. Sainsbury, T. Hundloe, A.D.M. Smith and B.
Whitworth. (2002). National ESD reporting framework for Australian fisheries: The
‘How to’ guide for wild capture fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145, Canberra,
Australia.
Friedman, C.S., Thompson, M., Chun, C., Haaker, P.L. and R.P. Hedrick. (1997). Withering
syndrome of the black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii (Leach): Water temperature, food
availability and parasites as possible causes. Journal of Shellfish Research. 16(2): 403-
411.
Gibson, P.T., D.G. Worthington, C. Blount and N.L. Andrew. (2002). Incidental damage to
blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra, by commercial divers in New South Wales, Australia.
Journal of Shellfish Research, 21: 787-792.
Goggin, C.L. and R.J.G Lester. (1995). Perkinsus, a protistan parasite of abalone in Australia:
a review. Marine and Freshawater Research 46: 639-646.
Goulstone, A. (1996). Fisheries management techniques. Fishnote DF 61, March 1996. NSW
Fisheries, Cronulla.
Hayward, A. (2003). Observations of grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) and scuba diver
behaviour. Honours Thesis.
Heemstra, P.C. and J.E. Randall, (1993). FAO, Rome, 382 pp.
Henry, G. W. and Lyle, J. M. (2003). The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing
Survey. Final Report to the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation and the
Fisheries Action Program. Project No. 1999/158. NSW Fisheries Final Report Series
No. 48. ISSN 1440-3544. 188pp.
Hobday, A. J., Tegner, M. J. and P. L. Haaker. (2001). Over-exploitation of a broadcast
spawning marine invertebrate: Decline of the white abalone. Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries 10: 493-514.
Hobday, A. J. and M. J. Tegner. (2002). The warm and the cold: Influence of temperature
and fishing on local population dynamics of red abalone. California Cooperative
Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 43: 74-96.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-319
IPART (1998). Pricing Principles for Management Charges in NSW Commercial fisheries.
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW, April.
Jefferson, T. A., Leatherwood, S. and M. A. Webber. (1993). FAO Species Identification
Guide: Marine Mammals of the World. FAO and UNEP, Rome, Italy, 320 pp.
Jenkins, G.P. (2004). The ecosystem effects of abalone fishing: a review. Marine and.
Freshwater Research. 55: 545-552.
Kennelly, S. J. (1987). Physical disturbances in an Australian kelp community. I. Temporal
effects. Marine Ecology Progress Series 40: 145-153.
Last, P. R. and Stevens, J. D. (1994). Sharks and Rays of Australia. CSIRO, Australia, 513 pp.
Lowry, L.F. and Pearse, J.S. (1973). Abalones and sea urchins in an area inhabited by sea
urchins. Marine Biology. 23: 213-219.
MacArthur Agribusiness (1998). Wild Abalone: Needs Review. Fisheries Research and
Development Corporation, FRDC Project 98/170.
Marsden Jacob Associates (2004). Future Governance of the NSW Abalone Fishery:
Alternative Arrangements. A report for NSW Fisheries and the Abalone Development
Company, 77 pp.
McShane, P.E. (1991). Density-dependent mortality of recruits of the abalone Haliotis rubra
(Mollusca: Gastropoda). Marine Biology 110: 385-389.
McShane, P.E. (1992). Early life history of abalone: a review. In S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner
and S.A. Guzman del Proo [ed.] Abalone of the world: Biology, fisheries and culture.
Fishing News Books, Oxford.
McShane, P.E. (1995). Recruitment variation in abalone: its importance to fisheries
management. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 555-570.
McShane, P.E. (1999). Blacklip abalone. In: N.L. Andrew [ed.]. Under southern seas – the
ecology of Australia’s rocky reefs. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. pp
72-77.
McShane, P.E., K.P. Black and M.G. Smith. (1988). Recruitment processes in Haliotis rubra
(Mollusca: Gastropoda) and regional hydrodynamics in southeastern Australia imply
localized dispersal of larvae. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
124: 175-203.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-320
McVerry, S. (1996). A Socio-economic Evaluation of the Clarence River Commercial
Fisheries. Unpublished undergraduate study, Faculty of Resource Science and
Management, Southern Cross University.
Menkhorst, P.W. and Knight, F. (2001). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford
University Press, South Melbourne, 269 pages.
Nash, W.J. (1992). An evaluation of egg-per-recruit analysis as a means of assessing size
limits for blacklip abalone (Haliotis rubra) in Tasmania. In: S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner
and S.A. Guzman del Proo [eds.] Abalone of the world: Biology, fisheries and culture.
Fishing News Books, Oxford.
National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) (2004) (in draft). The
economic impact of the Victorian abalone harvesting and processing industry: 2001-02.
A draft report for the Department of Primary Industries by the National Institute of
Economic and Industry Research, Victoria.
North, W.J. and Pearse, J.S. (1970). Sea urchin population explosion in Southern California
waters. Science. 167:209.
NSW Fisheries. (2001). Status of Fisheries Resources 2000/2001.
NSW Fisheries. (2002). Abalone Share Management Fishery 2001-2002 Annual Report.
NSW Fisheries. (2003). Abalone Share Management Fishery: NSW Fisheries Submission to
TAC Committee 2003.
NSW Fisheries. (2004). Abalone Share Management Fishery: NSW Fisheries Submission to
TAC Committee 2004.
Officer, R.A., C.D. Dixon and H.K. Gorfine. (2001). Movement and re-aggregation of the
blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra Leach, after fishing. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:
771-779.
Palmer, M. (2004). Report on illegal fishing for commercial gain or profit in NSW.
Independent Report, 53 pp.
Prince, J.D. (1989). The amateur and illegal fisheries for abalone in New South Wales.
Unpublished report.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-321
Prince, J.D., T.L. Sellers, W.B. Ford and S.R. Talbot. (1987). Experimental evidence for
limited dispersal of haliotid larvae (genus Haliotis: Mollusca: Gastropoda). Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 106: 243-263.
Prince, J.D., T.L. Sellers, W.B. Ford and S.R. Talbot. (1988). Recruitment, growth, mortality
and population structure in a southern Australian population of Haliotis rubra
(Mollusca: Gastropoda). Marine Biology 100: 75-82.
Reid, C.R.M. and H.F. Campbell (1998). Bio-economic Analysis of the Queensland Beam
Trawl Fishery. Dept. of Economics, University of Queensland and FRDC (94/035).
Sainsbury, K.J. (2000). Review of the stock assessment research for abalone in NSW.
Unpublished report.
Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E. and A.D.M. Smith. (2000). Design of operations management
strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
57:731-741.
Shaughnessy, P.D. (1999). The action plan for Australian seals. Report to Environment
Australia, April, 1999. ISBN 0 642 54617 7. 116pp. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/seals/actionplan.html
Shepherd, S.A. (1973). Competition between sea urchins and abalone. Australian Fisheries.
32: 4-7.
Shepherd, S.A. and P.A. Breen. (1992). Mortality in abalone: its estimation, variability and
causes. In S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner and S.A. Guzman del Proo [ed.] Abalone of the
world: Biology, fisheries and culture. Fishing News Books, Oxford.
Shepherd, S.A. and P.D. Steinberg. (1992). Food preferences of three Australian abalone
species with a review of algal food of abalone. In S.A. Shepherd, M.J. Tegner and S.A.
Guzman del Proo [ed.] Abalone of the world: Biology, fisheries and culture. Fishing
News Books, Oxford.
SMP (2000). Abalone Share Management Plan 2000. 57 pp.
TAC Committee. (2002). Abalone Fishery Report and Determination for 2003-4. Report by
the Total Allowable Catch and Setting Review Committee. 39 pp.
TAC Committee. (2004a). Abalone Fishery Report and Determination for 2004-5. Report by
the Total Allowable Catch and Setting Review Committee. 44 pp.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-322
TAC Committee. (2004b). Review of 2004-5 Total Allowable Catch Decision. 15 pp.
Tamblyn, C. and R.A. Powell (1988). Input and Output study of the North Coast
Agriculture and Fisheries Industries, NSW Dept. of Agriculture, Wollongbar.
Tegner, M.L. and Dayton, P.K. (2000). Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest
communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 57: 579-589.
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd (2002). Port Botany Expansion; Aquatic Ecology, Conservation and
Fisheries, prepared for Sydney Ports Corporation.
Thomas, M. and R.W. Day. (1995). Site selection by a small drilling predator: Why does the
gastropod Haustrum baileyanum drill over muscle tissue of the abalone Haliotis rubra?
Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 647-655.
Walter, C.J. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York, Macmillan
Press.
Walter, C.J. and P.H. Pearse (1996). Stock information requirements for quota management
systems in commercial fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 66:21-42.
Worthington, D.G., N.L. Andrew and G. Hamer. (1995). Covariation between growth and
morphology suggests alternative size limits for the blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra, in
New South Wales, Australia. US Fishery Bulletin 93: 551-561.
Worthington, D.G. and N.L. Andrew. (1996). Small scale variation in demography and its
implications for an alternative size limit in the fishery for abalone, Haliotis rubra, in
New South Wales, Australia. Canadian Special Publication of Aquatic and Fisheries
Science 125: 341-348.
Worthington, D.G. and N.L. Andrew. (1997). Does covariation between growth and
reproduction compromise the use of an alternative size limit for the blacklip abalone,
Haliotis rubra, in New South Wales, Australia. Fisheries Research 32: 223-231.
Worthington, D.G. and C. Blount. (2003). Research to aid the development of the fishery for
sea urchins in NSW. Final Report to the Fisheries Research & Development
Corporation and the Fisheries Action Program. Project No. 1999/128. NSW Fisheries
Final Report Series No. 56. ISSN 1440-3544. 170pp.
NSW Abalone Fishery EIS, Volume 2 September 2005
The Ecology Lab Pty Ltd – Marine and Freshwater Studies Page G-323
Worthington, D.G., R.C. Chick, C. Blount, P.A. Brett and P.T. Gibson. (1997). An assessment
of the NSW abalone fishery in 1997. NSW Fisheries’ Fishery Resource Assessment
Series No. 3, 58 pp.
Worthington, D.G., R.C. Chick, C. Blount, P.A. Brett and P.T. Gibson. (1998). A final
assessment of the NSW abalone fishery in 1997. NSW Fisheries’ Fishery Resource
Assessment Series No. 5, 74 pp.
Worthington, D.G., R.C. Chick, C. Blount and P.T. Gibson. (1999). An assessment of the
NSW abalone fishery in 1998. NSW Fisheries’ Fishery Resource Assessment Series No.
6, 55 pp.
Worthington, D.G., R.C. Chick, C. Blount and P.T. Gibson. (2001). An assessment of the
performance indicators of the Abalone Share Management Plan in 2000. NSW
Fisheries’ Fishery Resource Assessment Series No. 11, 48 pp.
Internet References
Internet Ref 1: http://northflorida.fws.gov/SeaTurtles/Turtle%20Factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm
Internet Ref 2: http://www.cmaquarium.org/green_sea_turtles.htm
Internet Ref 3: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/conservation/threatened_species/turtles/leatherback_turtles.html
Internet Ref 4: http://home.mira.net/~areadman/dugong.htm
Internet Ref 5: http://epbcweb.ea.gov.au/images/index.html
Internet Ref 6
http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/conservation/threatened/conserv_threat_species.h
tm 06/05/2003.
Internet Ref 7:
http://ea.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/whale-brochure.html
Internet Ref 8:
http://www.abc.net.au/illawarra/stories/s584416.htm
Internet Ref 9:
http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/result_reccount.jsp?selFF=FA&rdSpecies=all&rdRecords=all&receivedType=Reserve&receivedValue=N0090&receivedText=Jervis+Bay+National+Park+(NSW)